Obama and the Middle East and the Times
The NY Times gently chides Obama on his Middle East policy. For them, that’s the equivalent of a hit piece.
Among the nuggets contained in the article, there’s a phone conversation on Feb 1, 2011, in which Obama told Mubarak he had to step down. Mubaraks’s answer:
“You don’t understand this part of the world…You’re young.”
The rest of the Times piece goes on to detail just how right Mubarak was about Obama’s lack of understanding. But I think Mubarak was being too kind. It’s not Obama’s youth that caused his actions; he ain’t that young, anyway. And although it may be true that Obama doesn’t understand that part of the world, it also may be true that he understands it quite well and has a different intention than most people think—the old “fool vs. knave” argument that we’ve had so many times on this blog.
After the phone call, Obama publicly called for Mubarak’s resignation. Here’s what the Times has to say about that [emphasis mine]:
With those words, Mr. Obama upended three decades of American relations with its most stalwart ally in the Arab world, putting the weight of the United States squarely on the side of the Arab street.
It was a risky move by the American president, flying in the face of advice from elders on his staff at the State Department and at the Pentagon, who had spent decades nursing the autocratic ”” but staunchly pro-American ”” Egyptian government.
Many decades of bipartisan nursing, I might add. Out the window (or under the bus).
It’s one thing to overturn the regime of Saddam Hussein. He was no ally, and he was a much more bloodthirsty tyrant than Mubarak, both internally within Iraq itself and in terms of his relations with neighboring countries. But with the overthrow of ally Mubarak, Obama out-neoconned the neocons, throwing his (and our) lot in with the Arab street, and almost certainly with the Islamists.
Then there’s this:
Nineteen months later, Mr. Obama was at the State Department consoling some of the very officials he had overruled.
I’m sure they were comforted marvelous much.
Again with the narcissism [emphasis mine]:
Speaking privately to grieving State Department workers, the president tried to make sense of the unfolding events. He talked about how he had been a child abroad, taught to appreciate American diplomats who risked their lives for their country.
The Times refers to “hard lessons” Obama has learned since becoming president:
…[B]old words and support for democratic aspirations are not enough to engender good will in this region, especially not when hampered by America’s own national security interests.
I wonder whether Obama has actually learned those lessons. But the Times ignores that fact that, if he indeed ever thought that “bold words and support for democratic aspirations” would be “enough to engender good will in this region,” then he was dangerously naive and stunningly stupid.
But perhaps he is/was just that naive and just that stupid. I wrote about that possibility back in June of 2009:
Does Obama himself actually believe his speech caused the people of Iran to protest the elections and to demonstrate for their freedom? I don’t know. But if he does, it would fit in with something I’ve noticed before, both in Obama and on the Left in general: their elevation of the power of words over acts. After all, it’s worked that way for Obama his whole life so far. (see this for a discussion of why wordsmiths tend to go ga-ga over Obama).
When the Right, in trying to figure Obama out, says “watch what he does, not what he says,” they’re using a principle that seems self-evident. But it’s not that way for liberals and the Left, who are often far more interested in declarations of intent, in eloquence rather than achievement. If a person has the right goals in mind, if a person sounds like a good person, that’s the most important thing. And if liberals and the soft Left (the hard Left is quite different) are moved so mightily by words and speeches, they tend to conclude that everyone in the world shares that tendency.
But back to the Times article. Here’s another Obama failing it points out:
To some, the stark difference between the outcomes in Cairo and Bahrain illustrates something else, too: his impatience with old-fashioned back-room diplomacy, and his corresponding failure to build close personal relationships with foreign leaders that can, especially in the Middle East, help the White House to influence decisions made abroad.
Another revelation from the article is that Obama’s support for the Arab street in Tunisia and Egypt stemmed from his chagrin over his lack of support for the protesters in Iran. Earth to Obama: Iran is not an ally of ours, but Egypt was (even Obama seems to notice the “was” part). That’s why supporting the toppling of the government of Iran is not the same as supporting the toppling of Egypt’s leader.
Again, it’s very hard to imagine Obama doesn’t already know this. Fool or knave?
And again, again, again with the narcissism:
Mr. Obama felt keenly, one aide said, the need for the United States, and for he himself, to stand as a moral example. “He knows that the protesters want to hear from the American president, but not just any American president,” a senior aide to Mr. Obama said. “They want to hear from this American president.” In other words, they wanted to hear from the first black president of the United States, a symbol of the possibility of change.
One of the many things Obama does not seem to know about Egypt is that there is quite a bit of anti-black racism there:
Dark-skinned Egyptian President Anwar Sadat faced insults of not looking “Egyptian enough” and “Nasser’s black poodle.” An Egyptian Nubian soccer player Mahmoud Abdel Razek stopped playing football due to racist slurs by rival Egyptian fans during a game.
According to the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), Black African immigrants to Egypt often face physical violence and verbal abuse at the hands of the general public and law enforcement officials. refugee from Sudan are especially targeted, with racial slurs like “oonga boonga” and “samara” (meaning “black”) constituting the most typical insults
The Times article goes on to give Obama credit, at least, for prescience in knowing that the Arab street would win in Egypt and Mubarak would lose. It doesn’t seem to occur to them, however, that Obama’s “prescience” might have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. When he withdrew support for Mubarak and publicly abandoned him, calling for his resignation, Obama almost certainly substantially weakened Mubarak’s position.
More:
…[I]n the following weeks, Mr. Obama fell silent. Away from the public eye, he was coming under assault from leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, even Israel. Angry at the treatment of Mr. Mubarak, which officials from the Gulf states feared could forecast their own abandonment, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates drew a line in the sand. Some American and Arab diplomats say that response could have been avoided if Mr. Obama had worked quietly to ease Mr. Mubarak out, rather than going public.
Ya think?
There’s much, much more. But I’ll just close with this, because it counters Obama’s overwhelming narcissism rather effectively:
The tensions between Mr. Obama and the Gulf states, both American and Arab diplomats say, derive from an Obama character trait: he has not built many personal relationships with foreign leaders. “He’s not good with personal relationships; that’s not what interests him,” said one United States diplomat. “But in the Middle East, those relationships are essential. The lack of them deprives D.C. of the ability to influence leadership decisions.”
Arab officials echo that sentiment, describing Mr. Obama as a cool, cerebral man who discounts the importance of personal chemistry in politics. “You can’t fix these problems by remote control,” said one Arab diplomat with long experience in Washington. “He doesn’t have friends who are world leaders. He doesn’t believe in patting anybody on the back, nicknames.
“You can’t accomplish what you want to accomplish” with such an impersonal style, the diplomat said.
I said I’d close with that. But I’m going to go against my word and add one more thing. The Times article ends with a quote from a former assistant secretary of state named Jeffrey Feltman, who said:
…“[T]he event I find politically most disturbing is the attack on Embassy Tunis.” Angry protesters breached the grounds of the American diplomatic compound there last week ”” in a country previously known for its moderation and secularism ”” despite Mr. Obama’s early support for the democracy movement there. “That really shakes me out of complacency about what I thought I knew.”
I am puzzled. Looking at Feltman’s biography, I see that he’s an accomplished Middle East hand who’s served under both Democrats and Republicans. Could he really be so surprised about the forces we are up against, and their potential power even in moderate Arab and/or Islamic nations?
One thing that seems to be the case, though, is that recent events in Egypt and elsewhere in the region seem to have “really shaken” the NY Times out of its own complacency about Obama’s Middle East policy. For the moment, anyway.
Way too little, way too late.
He talked about how he had been a child abroad
Christ, will he give that a rest? If those years were so formative, then he’s not culturally an American, and conversely.
One of the many things Obama does not seem to know about Egypt is that there is quite a bit of anti-black racism there
This. Racism goes back to the Pharaohs, whose tombs were adorned with images of their troops riding down, slaughtering, and enslaving Nubians.
Americans think that all “brown peoples” have this natural affinity for each other, when nothing could be further from the truth. Said before, but true: America is far less racist than any other country I’ve ever visited or lived in. Not even close.
I appreciate the post, Neo, but I am way past done with Obama Studies.
He is the equivalent of a feral pig, and I don’t want him on my ranch any more.
Your post from June 2009 nailed it. Remember how Obama impressed so many by saying he would “talk” to our enemies. As if Bush had never tried diplomacy and just went in with his guns blazing. They are that naive and stupid about almost everything. Or they know the members of their party are.
Don Carlos: I understand.
But one of the main points of this post was that if the Times is writing this, that indicates they’re somewhat fed up, too, which could indicate something important.
Although I would understand it if you’re fed up with hearing about the Times. I’m rather fed up, too.
Occam’s Beard: I think the ” brown people’s alliance” may be changing. In our country Hispanics and blacks were happy to ignore previous tensions and form a coalition to vote for a minority candidate.
“Iran is not an ally of ours, but Egypt was….That’s why supporting the toppling of the government of Iran is not the same as supporting the toppling of Egypt’s leader.
Again, it’s very hard to imagine Obama doesn’t already know this.”
Of course he knows it. It just makes him look even more noble, to endanger the security of the United States for the sake of his high-minded principles.
(I find Obama endlessly fascinating. How far into life can you go with the mind of a 19-year-old? How long can this country survive with him as President?)
In our country Hispanics and blacks were happy to ignore previous tensions and form a coalition to vote for a minority candidate.
What coalition? Blacks were on board from racial solidarity and the prospect of getting handouts (Hi there, Peggy Joseph!), and Hispanics were bought by the prospect of amnesty for illegal aliens. Apart from that, Hispanics and blacks are pretty much at each others’ throats, at least here in CA.
“Way too little, way too late.”
But perhaps just enough and at the perfect time for the upcoming election.
O.B. says ‘all “brown peoples” have this natural affinity for each other, when nothing could be further from the truth.’
Takes me back several decades to my time in South Africa. The gold miners had to be segregated by tribe to minimize inter-tribal violence. The various tribes rotated to and from work from their Bantustans in their hundreds, so no two tribes ever worked the same mine at the same time.
Baragwanath Hospital, the huge public hospital for Bantus(generic Africaans for all blacks), had a whole ward that housed quadriplegics… they became quads by being pithed from behind by a sharpened bicycle spoke while on the crowded ‘Nee Blankies’ public buses. One on one intertribal warfare.
One on one intertribal warfare.
Kinda like the Bloods and the Crips, then? Or the Hutu and the Tutsi. Not to mention the Aztecs and just about everybody, or the wars between the various American Indian tribes, or the bitter strife between Hindus and Muslims in India/Pakistan, or the enmity between Japanese and Chinese, or Japanese and Koreans, or …
The point of course being that, contra the Reds, bitter strife does not require the involvement, even peripherally, of whites, much less Americans or capitalists. Inconvenient for the narrative, but there it is.
The NY Times’ Michael Gordon is not gentle in his chiding of Obama’s incompetent handling of Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?smid=pl-share&_rmoc.semityn.www
In WaPo, AEI’s Marc Theissen reports that Obama’s foreign policy actually has been realist in practice and only rhetorically liberal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-myth-of-barack-the-liberator/2012/09/17/4d1c7996-00ca-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html
Bush apparently anticipated the Arab Spring insofar 9/11 woke him up to the realization that the Cold War realist strategy of US reliance on autocrats was no longer sustainable for the long term. I recommend reviewing Bush’s 2004 AF academy speech on his strategy for the War on Terror:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html
Note Bush’s emphasis on developing civil institutions and liberal reform, not just democracy. Bush applied the Freedom Agenda to work with regional allies to steer the coming populist revolt toward a soft landing with liberal reform. With the exception of the Afghanistan ‘surge’, Obama ended the Freedom Agenda and opted for a regressive realist policy (eg, an early sign was not supporting the Iranian protests), despite his liberal rhetoric, which rendered the US unprepared to deal with the Arab Spring.
The changing ME was going to be an extraordinarily difficult balancing act of short-term realities and long-term needs that demanded deft handling from any US president. Bush, as it turns out, was far more deft at balancing short-term interests and standing relations, the War on Terror, and the need for the US to manage our long-term position through the course of the region’s upheaval. Obama has been ham-handed and overwhelmed by the complexity of the situation.
Bush simply was a more intelligent president than Obama. As a liberal, Bush also walked the walk and talked the talk. Obama has talked one way and walked the other way.
It is rather sad that Obama is an interesting personality simply because his behavior is so irrational. We are all guessing whether he can understand this or that, or is he intentionally trying to destroy a country he hates? We assume he is winging the whole or part of the Presidency, but how much? Does anyone recall any contemporary leader inspiring such an army of amateur psychoanalysts?
One thing that too few have paid attention too as an explanation for his behavior is mental and moral laziness. He did nothing to support the Iranian street demonstrators because such a decision would have been hard. Since in his mind he is the smartest man in the world doing nothing was brillant. He did act in Libya because the Arab League and Europeans already made the decision, he merely had to go along. Syria is hard so he won’t make a decision until it becomes easy to do so. Unseating Mubarak seemed easy as well, an old tyrant versus facebook kids crying for freedom, what could go wrong. Again the decision was brilliant because he made it although it was an extremely easy call for someone who is ignorant of the situation. As for Israel and the Iranian nukes, it would be a hard decision so he will avoid making it. All of a sudden Obama becomes more predictable.
Bob,
Good point. Bush wasn’t especially proactive in his foreign policy before 9/11, but after 9/11, made bold choices to at least TRY to get in front of events. Of course, Bush was slammed from the right and left for practicing actual leadership as Commander in Chief. Which Obama would be wary about since he did a lot of the slamming.
Great post Neo.
How ironic that we are reading about his lack of personal relationships with foreign leaders on the very day that he snubbed so many of them at the UN. He apparently does have a great relationship with Whoopi, et al.
Someone was charitable when describing him as cool and cerebral. Cold and self-centered, certainly. If I can be forgiven for being personal it reminds me that when I was much younger I was very quiet. More than a few people told me that I seemed cool and cerebral, or words to that effect. The truth was that I had nothing to say; but, I had sense enough to know it. I outgrew that characteristic, and occasionally regret it.
OB: Uh, you can have different groups with different priorities form coalitions. The entire Democrat party is a coalition of identity groups.
And Obama got a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote than Kerry or Gore did. Call me a paranoid racist but, I think there might of been a little bit of US against the white guy. Maybe not. They might have bought the hype like many others did.
It was cool to see Univision really grill O in that recent interview.
“I am puzzled. Looking at Feltman’s biography, I see that he’s an accomplished Middle East hand who’s served under both Democrats and Republicans. Could he really be so surprised about the forces we are up against, and their potential power even in moderate Arab and/or Islamic nations?”
An assistant Sec. State and accomplished Middle East hand certainly understands the need to ‘cover your a**’ His statement has all the hallmarks of Casablanca’s Captain Renault: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
The NYT article is more of the same. If Obama loses, the “stupidity of the American public”, the “evil mendacity” of republicans and corporate interests and a little bit of “fool me once, shame on you” from the MSM will be the excuses offered.
Eric:
Bush did not understand that it takes generations to create civil institutions and other social reforms. He did not understand that the utter Democrat enmity prognosticated total departure from his goals, however distant and however noble they might be.
He did not understand the enemy was within, not without. In that, he harmed us all; harm that will persist for generations, perhaps. Recall his “Islam is a religion of peace” to see that his wish was father to his thought.
Perhaps a semantic distinction, but I would consider a coalition to be different groups unified by an issue, as opposed to happening to vote for the same person for unrelated (and perhaps conflicting) reasons.
I would consider the Democrat Party not as a coalition, but as an uneasy aggregate of identity groups whose positions on issues are in the main incompatible with each other (e.g., union members and environmentalists; homosexuals and minorities; pro-abortion feminists and Hispanic women).
oh lawd… neo’s has me bug…
you can measure that one with a yard stick.. 🙂
Many decades of bipartisan nursing, I might add. Out the window (or under the bus).
I think the term you may be looking for is Defenestration… (while the NY police are looking for Frotteurism to replace ‘grinding’, but don’t know it as we are now at a 5th grade level from the 8th grade we were when i was a little boy, and the 13th we were at when James Fenimore cooper wrote his books intended for youths).
With that interesting trail exposed for the curious, i will address something that everyone is missing… (and i know so by the absence of certain dialogue and so on)
NEO: It’s not Obama’s youth that caused his actions; he ain’t that young, anyway. And although it may be true that Obama doesn’t understand that part of the world, it also may be true that he understands it quite well and has a different intention than most people think–the old “fool vs. knave” argument
What is the difference between living as a free individual and living or following a collectivist ideology?
there are certain fundamental differences between these systems that i keep seeing people make the same basic mistakes of “all of them are the same”, and proceed from there…
how does one come to a decision in a collectivist ideology? does one just pick the best solution? does one examine the options and then weighing the points, select?
no… one first looks or rather self censors answers that are forbidden by the collective ideology, which always comes first.
and how do we know what we know? by our own learning? not collectivists, they are handed Confucian rules and such of what to apply or how to think to maintain collective harmony.
all along this journey of years i have watched people who do not know these rules, do not know to apply them, and don’t know where they are from, claim they are confused and that the other side is crazy.
their choices come from their ideology and that view of the world (from raised consciousness don’t ya know). NO other interpretations are allowed.
so the idea that a wild country needs a despotic ruler to hold it together… and a modern passive state needs to avoid them. is alien.
all their interpretations are cargo cult (surface appearances and the view from there). So in the case of Mubarak, he knows what his constituency forces him to do, and a young person has not.
Its the difference between what you think you know, and what you think you know in action… from academics (who think they know the world best but dont as they are seldom in it), to young people who know nothing but what they been told and hang on to that dearly, they rarely get to test these ideas out or look for validity.
In fact, they would rather be wrong together than be right alone…
so Obama is taking his world view from an old playbook. not the modernized one. and so, his judgements are from that book, and his choices of action are from that. he has the bastardized westernized unreal version to boot..
G. Kennan
I will end this thinking note with another quote, updated a bit to trim the edges to show the fit.
everything is fake, there is no such thing as real grass roots, truth is irrelevant so say or claim what scores points even if contradictory and especially if your constituency likes the points a whole lot (hear that feminists? lies are ok, you serve someone elses end, and they bribe you with ego boosts over substance that doesn’t have to be backed up).
this is not a normal persons world view. a normal person who they claim is programmed for capitalism by the society, thinks lies and truth are important, thinks their own life is important and should not be sacrificed to aristocracies whims presented as goals, think slavery sucks, etc.
so if your going to analyst their choices from any basis other than the real one, your always going to come up short.
young can mean other things…
it can also mean a lack of experience as to whether the ideas one spends a lifetime in books, halls, and artificial living, learning from others writings and not only that, but a stunted stilted ideologically bound writings…
outside these little worlds, they would be seen as fanatics, always about one subject, always about whatever they read recently, and always copying what they are told is right, and so when you ask them to discuss it with real info, they get angry. they dont have real info, they only have the billet sheet of facts and no talking points.
so what we think of women is what Marx prophesied about them, and since that, been trying to force their square pegs into round holes… there is no alternative view in the world (though in your head there may be, but that’s not the world, and a collection of people who think the same, but dare not act on it and promote it, are not a collection).
the choices made are choices to help world socialism (communism/fascism hybrid). That is what ideology says to do. so ousting mubarak is just helping that along. unless the ball is in play, its state or position cant change, and so a known quantity that does not support or cant be nudged over, is removed.
if the prior administration for the constitution was making a buffer zone as the soviets call it, then this one is dismantling it. either way, a war is coming because of the state of things… especially the people in general… of course the only people that pish tosh such are those that helped create it… not those who know what moral, and basic education, and functional thinking and all that means, and what debt attracts, and so on.
when i got to the end, there was one more thing to comment on, a clue, a hint, a thing to note.
NEO: Could he really be so surprised about the forces we are up against, and their potential power even in moderate Arab and/or Islamic nations?
Yes…
One has to understand the nature of the beast that is a bureaucracy of some sort. A bureaucracy has no eyes, it has no mind, etc. how it sees and things has to do with inputs mostly from reports…
most people don’t get this, so they don’t question the bs games of the reports!!! they say something like i know that’s what it says, but its obviously wrong… is not possible.
Another thing about a bureaucracy is that if your an entity inside it who does not make ‘policy’ or cant change ‘policy’ that is the point of issue, you get a free pass as long as you follow it. (not doing what they say is insubordination, even if what they ask is illegal – amazing, eh?).
So the more a side uses ideology to distort things. to give an appearance of over substance (that ole cargo cult view of the world), the more toxic their world view and distorted it is.
so once it was pragmatic to lie over maintain truth. you got a system of distortions where they believe whatever it is, as there is no reason not to in their experiential world.
its a mathematical truth that errors are cumulative.
so the more distortions that go into making choices the more distorted the choices, the more surprising the outcome, the more punitive and wasteful the response to get it back on track, which is also distorted and caries the prior distortions with it.
Other than the kinds of books i said they read, that most others wont bother, and the world view i said are in them, they have no other way of knowing the world.
given that every term, lie or truth is selected based on its imagined returns. and you know what to say by copying others. ie. if you all have the same smart answer, then you are all geniuses on the surface, eh? As long as people presented the answers the collective gave them ‘permission’ to (by withholding some form of social pain), then how can anyone tell anyone was smarter or dumber or able or not?
Hayek spoke of this but he had a different term for it.
now what if i said…
Marxist argument vs logical argument
Would you think there were two? three? ten?
next post…
“Bush did not understand that it takes generations to create civil institutions and other social reforms. He did not understand that the utter Democrat enmity prognosticated total departure from his goals, however distant and however noble they might be.”
I agree with Don Carlos, Dubya is a good man but his handling of the crisis that came to a head on 9/11 was rather naive and ill-advised. IMO civil institutions and social reforms can not happen in certain cultures. The question that I always ask liberals when it comes to a discussion about the Israeli – Islamic conflict is this one: What is it that you admire about Islamic culture? Ask a liberal that question and they are tongue tied.
Don,
Bush (from the linked 2004 speech): “Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations.”
I do not mean to imply Bush clairvoyantly anticipated the start date of the Arab Spring, only that after 9/11, he accurately read the changing conditions in the Middle East and understood the US needed to change course from the realist status quo.
I agree that Bush did not deal well with the Democrats’ fratricidal sabotage.
when playing cards it helps to know what game your playing… no?
For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy, itself, is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain.” Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is “the science of the general laws of motion both of the external world and of human thought” Lenin
so… give them a different history… and false arguments and all the things that rhetoric and so forth worked hard to not allow… and they will see the world differently and so make different choices.
The Cold War’s Arab Spring
Stolen Kremlin records show how the Soviets, including Gorbachev, created many of today’s Middle East conflicts
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/103576/the-cold-wars-arab-spring?all=1
OB: agree, it’s just semantics. It’s why the Dems are often referred to as a fragile coalition. They unite for power and money because many of their groups are too small by themselves.
parker,
“I agree with Don Carlos, Dubya is a good man but his handling of the crisis that came to a head on 9/11 was rather naive and ill-advised.”
What was the alternative?
Bush decided autocrat-based stability was no longer reliable and its costs were no longer bearable. Wherever the autocrats days were numbered, the Islamists were best positioned to take power from the autocrats in a populist revolt. Bush sought to empower the less powerful but also preferred populist faction, the liberals, in the post-autocrat competition for power.
Don Carlos: I think Bush may have felt he had no alternatives but to try, despite how hard it would be. He really did believe Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them, which he felt forced his hand.
His error was in thinking Saddam had WMDs. But after reading the Duelfer report, it’s pretty clear that if sanctions had been lifted, Saddam might have gotten his WMDs. We have no way to know what the road not taken would have been.
I will note that Bush continued support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, he wasn’t pushing the whole region into turmoil.
His error was in thinking Saddam had WMDs.
Saddam acted guilty, by being defient on UN resolutions, etc. I blame Bill Clinton, who taugh the lesson that we were not really serious or willing to do any heavy lifting that carried risk.
I agree that Bush did not deal well with the Democrats’ fratricidal sabotage.
It’s an amazing thing, isn’t it. From Sen. Clinton and Biden voting for war to becoming Obama’s SoS and VP.
And Obama, talking down to Gen. “Betrayus” without giving the Gen a chance to respond, and never crediting the Surge, but later using his own surge in A’stan with the same general he lectured . . .
Thinking through the whole series of events, the Dem behaviour was . . . really something else.
Let read what Iran’s tail (Nuri Jawad Al-Maliki) for their unconditional support for Iran
العراق يطالب بإخضاع المنشآت النووية الإسرائيلية للوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية
http://www.baghdadtimes.net/Arabic/?sid=113498
’s why the Dems are often referred to as a fragile coalition.
KLSmith, I suspect that that’s why Air America went the way of the passenger pigeon. Basic Dem strategy is to tell each of the disparate (and diametrically opposed) groups whatever they want to hear, and hope that the opposing group never gets wind of that.
But Air America aspired to be a national voice for leftists. What could you possibly say about a hot button issue to union members that wouldn’t enrage eco-nuts, and vice versa? To Hispanic women and pro-abortion feminists? And so it goes for all of the Dem single-issue constituencies.
Maybe I don’t understand your first point NeoNeocon, are you saying Obama had a choice to support Muburak during the mass protests?
Please, please what outcome was going to happen if we supported Mubarak, other than a beatdown of people in Tamir Square shown on TV for more weeks on end supported by the U.S.
“Ms.” President, smartypants, support whatever it is you’re trying to say how you’re showing up Obama on this point.
Many decades of bipartisan nursing, I might add. Out the window (or under the bus)
Yeah, really, so what would you do? Seriously?
Eric says, “Bush sought to empower the less powerful but also preferred populist faction, the liberals, in the post-autocrat competition for power.”
Has that happened in Iraq of Afghanistan? I submit it was actually mission impossible with no chance of success from the get go. Maybe I’m a bigoted cynic, but I see nothing in the culture of either ‘nation’ that suggests these are societies even remotely capable of reform. Its devolved into tribalism brutal, harsh, and wallowing in hatred.
BTW, how much ‘liberalism’ exists in the Islamic societies of the Middle East and SW Asia? I’m certain there are open minded individuals in those regions, but they are just dust on the shoes of the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, etc.
Yeah, really, so what would you do?
Perhaps I can make bold to respond for our estimable hostess.
The obvious thing to do was find a favorably disposed younger army officer/politician (who could promise “hope and change,” that sort of thing, assuming Egyptians are as stupid as 52% of Americans, but keep the lid on) and ease Mubarak out in favor of him.
You’re welcome.
“but keep” –> “but who could keep”
Saddam had to be taken down. For too long he was allowed to thumb his nose at the terms of the the 1991 ceasefire accord. I supported the effort to end the reign of Saddam and his cronies, but beyond that I could not support ‘nation building’ unless we were willing to dictate what institutions and procedures would be put into place. Victors dictate, the defeated obey without question. Anything less means the defeated eventually revert to past behavior.
Larbak: I have stated on other occasions that the situation in Egypt was one of those really rough ones in which there were not a lot of good alternatives. But Obama chose a very bad one. I would have at the very least not put pressure on Mubarak to resign at that early point. I think Obama was incredibly naive about the forces that would replace Mubarak, because it was obvious that Islamists would have a very good chance of taking over.
Here is a post of mine from February of 2011 that discusses some suggestions made by Bolton for after Mubarak was overthrown.
Give Obama a break, neo. He’s pretty much at a loss to do when an opponent has no divorce records to leak.
“to do” –> “of what to do”
Sheesh. Sorry.
Excellent find, Neo. Ok, the NYT isn’t exactly an obscure publication, but it’s nothing I’ll ever read. But I guess if you dig through a pile of manure long enough you’ll find a gem or two.
Poor Obama. Passive victim of events.
Two thoughts:
1. Responding to Mubarak’s comment, Obama is not “young,” he’s arrogant.
2. Neo: “Obama chose a very bad [alternative]”. The problem is, Obama didn’t choose anything. He did what he did so often in Chicago: he voted “present” and left it to others to guess what he wanted as US policy and then left it to them to pick up the pieces. This is the approach of a community organizer who does not see any opportunity to commit extortion: he just punts and waits for another opportunity to present itself. He is either stupid of totally disinterested in his job. I suspect the latter.
I have wondered about that, but think Iraq has (had?) a chance if properly nurtured.
“He that soweth the wind shall reapeth the whirlwind.”
WEAKNESS IS PROVOCATIVE. Do any of these flabby Lefty fools & moral cowards learn ANYTHING from the long string of disasters last century directly due to wishful thinking and weakness?
Never mind, I know the answer,’Yo.
Since we have segued into Iraq, may I point out that Iraq was a creation of the League of Nations in 1920, carved from the rump of the Ottoman Empire, with Kurds, Shia, Sunnis, who occupy different sectors and cannot live together in one country except under totalitarian rule, thus Saddam.
Bush I could have solved it by taking Bagdhad (and Saddam) and splitting Iraq into three parts. Instead, the Kurds fled in their several millions into the snowy mountains and the Shia homeland was rapidly destroyed by Saddam et Sunnis. The Shia and the Kurd regions have the oil, and the Sunnis would have had organized opponents as neighbors had Iraq been divided, a much better game for regional checks and balances.
Bush II perpetuated the error.
We are left with an internally divided, marginally functional state in tre partes starring Nuri al-Maliki and his corruptocrats at the helm. A waste of American lives and treasure, thanks to Bush naivete, IMHO.
F: I disagree. Obama chose something—he chose to call publicly for Mubarak’s resignation, thereby signalling to the world that America was abandoning Mubarak. That’s an action and a choice.
Neo:
That is not my recollection. I thought he temporized. I did a brief search just now and found reporting from February 2011 that confirms my recollection. Perhaps at another time he did call for Mubarak’s resignation, but when things first began to go south in Egypt I think he kicked the can down the road, further clouding the issue for Mubarak and his opponents. It is this lack of clear signals that puts our foreign policy in the miasma it is currently in.
F: Have you read the article that this entire post revolves around? From the article:
According to the Times article, this occurred on Feb. 1, 2011.
I stand corrected.
“… a much better game for regional checks and balances.”
Knock them down, destroy and kill to create a vacuum, then exit quickly, and allow your enemies to swarm in and kill each other. That is grand strategy. Pit Sunni against Shia. Pit tribe against tribe, sect against sect. Stop thinking the rump regions of the Ottoman Empire are actual nation states when in reality they are artificial, post-colonial hotbeds of ethnic-theological hatred. Our foreign/military policy in this region should be to encourage ethnic, tribal, and theological warfare.
“If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.” – Sun Tzu
We, the West, lack patience, we lack resolve, and we lack a heart of stone.
So, your answer was to continue the riots, beatings. and or shootings while america tries to manuever behind the scenes with Mubarik. I’m sure the suspicions of the Eqyptian public won’t catch on. And they will be patient
Pro-American government = Shah of Iran. You think it went badly in Egygt. You have no idea.
Don, Neo (and everyone else),
Re our decision not to partition Iraq, I recommend this interesting blog discussion, which apparently includes Iraqis and Iraq scholars, about partitioning Iraq; read the comments:
http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/operation-iraqi-partition/
DonS: I believe we had 2 ‘golden hours’ to plant the seeds of lasting change in Iraq. Our 1st and best window of opportunity was the immediate post-war in 2003. We wasted it due to Rumsfeld’s insistence on a light military footprint, emphasis on rushed civilian-led transition with the CPA, and most harmfully, our military’s institutionally poor post-war/occupation capability. The 2nd opportunity was the opportunity hard-earned by the Counterinsurgency ‘surge’, which according to NY Times reporter Michael Gordon, Obama fumbled away at a critical turning point.
Larbak: and, of course, you have an idea.
As I said, the situation was bad any way you slice it. But I think that Bolton’s suggestions are the best of a bad business, and Obama’s actions were a recipe for disaster.
Parker said, “Knock them down, destroy and kill to create a vacuum, then exit quickly, and allow your enemies to swarm in and kill each other. That is grand strategy. Pit Sunni against Shia. Pit tribe against tribe, sect against sect.”
I wonder if any such ideas were ever discussed in the NSC or DOD? I think what we all forget about the Middle east is that it was a center of much maneuvering during the Cold War. Why? The oil. The USSR wanted to gain control or at least make it far more expensive. We always worked to keep the oil flowing and to block the USSR attempts to turn the Muslims into communists. In the meantime, here at home we were slowly strangling our energy production thanks to the EPA and the Endangered Species Act. So, most of our strategic thinking has been toward maintaining stability and keeping the oil flowing. To a great extent that is still the main concern.
Why did we engage in Libya but are not getting involved in Syria? Oil is the answer. A Lot of Europe’s oil comes from Libya. That’s why the Italians, French, and others pushed Obama to get involved. Syria has little oil. No one’s worried about a civil war there interrupting major supplies. As Spengler says, “Let ’em fight!” We have no dog in that fight
Although they are not the behemoth they once were, the Russians still want to stir up trouble and tension because it keeps oil prices high. Their main exports are oil and natural gas. So they are still a thorn in our side in the ME.
It would be nice if we could foment tribal and sunni/shia conflict in the region to keep the barbarians off our backs, but such conflict on a widepsread basis would probably lead to oil shortages and rising prices. Much as we don’t like to admit it, oil is still the 900 pound gorilla in any strategic planning. Stability is what we want and what our policy is aimed at. So far Obama isn’t doing a great job because it is a long game and he thinks short term. If he thinks at all.
Perhaps the NYTimes has somebody on their staff who is old enough to remember how many years it took to build the alliance with Egypt, and the heavy price that was paid for that peace by both Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin (sp?).
They were both assassinated for their efforts to bring peace to their respective countries. But the peace endured, an uneasy difficult peace but it endured. Until President Know-It-All showed up and trashed it.
It will take decades to undo the damage caused by Obama. Politically, economically, racially, everything he touches he trashes.
JJ,
Yep. Carter Doctrine and its Reagan Corollary. The region’s security and stability is an articulated US national interest. The Carter Doctrine was actually a response to the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan and in recognition of active Soviet interest in the ME. Any IR major worth his BA must take at least one energy-based class. It’s eye-opening how closely global politics align with energy politics. Russia doesn’t have a green economy. Just because the USSR is gone doesn’t mean Russia’s political economic interest in the ME has gone away.
Artfldgr linked earlier to an interesting article claiming we typically underestimate the role the USSR and now Russia plays in working against US interests in the ME:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/103576/the-cold-wars-arab-spring?all=1
“So far Obama isn’t doing a great job because it is a long game and he thinks short term.”
I agree. Too often, he doesn’t even think short term – he thinks domestic optics.
I think what Neo is getting at with her discussion with F about how to handle Mubarak and the Cairo revolt isn’t that we should have striven to keep Mubarak in charge, but rather we should have tried to manage more deftly the transition of a US ally in a strategically important country with an eye on our position in the long game.
It certainly looks now that it pays better to be friends with the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians than it pays to be friends with the US.
You missed the third option:
“Scum-sucking evil piece of self-serving shit.”
Don Carlos Says:
“I appreciate the post, Neo, but I am way past done with Obama Studies.”
Blog posts of this quality can end up being used in the future to put the history of what happened here togeather… Neo cites a lot of sources that most conservatives are familar with (she has done catch up on what we grew up reading). Like the spin on the tet offensive being one example off the top of my head. 20 years from now we are not going to remember this level of detail… I’m glad someone wrote it down.
Occam’s Beard Says:
“Apart from that, Hispanics and blacks are pretty much at each others’ throats, at least here in CA.”
I’m in CA and I know what you mean. It will probably be the cause of a future progressive misstep that will set them back for a generation. Tossing the African American bloc under the bus in favor of courting Hispanics. They’ll see the big total number of Hispanics and forget that the smaller 11% of the population African American group vote for them in the 90% range. I saw initial bits of it starting when the dems made their last amnesty push. Anyways; apologies all for the crude racial politics but that’s the reality the progressives have created… and forced on us.
complexity complexity.
I read “he doesn’t think much” I agree. I read “there were no good options.” I agree. I read “oil” I agree. I read “domestic optics” I agree heartily. I read “fenestration” I think oh that must be it. I read “He’s young” or “He’s not that young” – and I take pause . . .
Forget the age in numbers: O is young in that he has never endured an adult de-frocking. The only de-frocking he had was that he had no ‘dad’ except for ‘Frank’ – and that was complicated with Frank’s relationship to Stanley. But since he got away from that mother’s nest, such as it was, he has endured no adult humbling. He sailed through college to Chicago to the White House due to his own skills at realizing (as deSouza puts it) that he can make people feel good about themselves coupled with the historical moment when he came of age. Nothing has not worked. His adorers, from Mad Madonna to Tom Brokaw to Valerie keep him in the glow of adoration – he has been SUCH an answer them. So he still trusts his intelligence, such as it is. But he has no wisdom. Wisdom comes from humility–and thus far life has not delivered him this gift. Until it does, the world endures his strong and immature intelligence and his natural penchant for self-indulgence and basket ball. Neither he nor the world yet realizes how much he and we would gain from a come-uppance. He has never yet had one! Most of us are de-frocked by the time we reach age fifty — but not O. The only thing that would cause the wax that holds on his wings to melt would be to lose in November. Then, perhaps, we could see something better than Carter from him. Well, perhaps, just perhaps. Otherwise we ride the pendulum from what he views as American agressive colonialism to what he views as “the answer” which is some version of Berkeley “consciousness raising” and “fairness.” Oy vey.
Boots, Menachim Begin was not assassinated. You must be thinking of Yizhak Rabin who was murdered for his deal with the Palestinians not Egyptians. Otherwise you’re right, Obama is destroying generations of work in the middle east.
M of Hollywood: what you’re saying is that Obama’s immature.
I agree. But he sure isn’t young.
So, your answer was to continue the riots, beatings. and or shootings while america tries to manuever behind the scenes with Mubarik.
You got it in one.
I’m sure the suspicions of the Eqyptian public won’t catch on. And they will be patient
Please. They already viewed Mubarak as an American puppet, and some wanted to put him on the Sadat plan. (I once was in the airport at Luxor when Mubarak arrived, unexpected and unannounced (for security reasons). His security was a phalanx half a dozen deep, and they meant business. The Egyptian public had no illusions about Mubarak, and would have had none about any successor to him.
Fool AND Knave.
KLSmith: “Your post from June 2009 nailed it. Remember how Obama impressed so many by saying he would “talk” to our enemies. As if Bush had never tried diplomacy and just went in with his guns blazing. They are that naive and stupid about almost everything. Or they know the members of their party are.”
The Dems did create a false narrative of Bush’s foreign affairs. Bush was not the one-note unilateralist warmonger painted by the Dems. He deployed diplomatic, military, law enforcement, espionage, economic means and took pains in rallying, and trying to rally, multilateral partners. I believe, perhaps because I’m not a political consultant and don’t know the game, that the GOP has made a major mistake by not defending (at least justifying) Bush’s record, thus giving the appearance of shying away from Bush and tacitly verifying the Dems’ false narrative.
Worse, it’s affected our actual foreign affairs because the Dems, whether or not they actually believe their false narrative on Bush, have to account for it in their real decisions because anti-Bush remains the fallback position of their domestic politics.
DonS: “Thinking through the whole series of events, the Dem behaviour was . . . really something else.”
Yep. The audacity of the Dems duplicity in the service of constructing an anti-Bush narrative for the all-important goal of winning the 2008 presidency is one for the books.
Look up Samantha Power. Taken off the 2008 campaign as an advisor (on paper) when she slipped from the campaign narrative on Iraq, then promptly brought back into Obama’s presidency in prominent roles in State and the NSC.
Or that Obama kept on the leaders of Bush’s war team (Gates, Petraeus, Mullen, Lute).
Or the things for which Ralph Nader has labeled Obama a “war criminal” and “worse than Bush”.
JJ formerly says, “It would be nice if we could foment tribal and sunni/shia conflict in the region to keep the barbarians off our backs, but such conflict on a widepsread basis would probably lead to oil shortages and rising prices. Much as we don’t like to admit it, oil is still the 900 pound gorilla in any strategic planning. Stability is what we want and what our policy is aimed at.”
I understand what you are saying, but I do not buy into that theory. Europe, Japan, China, and India are far more dependent upon ME oil than our economy. We get most of our imports from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Plus, we know we have domestic and off shore supplies of oil and natural gas waiting to be exploited. We know that the potential for TS reactors is unlimited. We refuse to do what needs to be done.
To me, the question is “what stability?”. IMO there is no such thing as stability. History is a dynamic and ever changing flow of events. Adapt or wither away. From my POV we have decided to wither. The world of geopolitics requires a heart of stone.
parker said, “Europe, Japan, China, and India are far more dependent upon ME oil than our economy. We get most of our imports from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria.”
All true. However, oil is a global commodity. If the Middle eastern supplies go down we will suffer the price rises along with everyone else because the prices are determined in commodity markets over which our government has little control. We could theoretically put price controls on the Chicago commodity exchange, but traders would just go to the ICE in London and oil would go where the prices were highest.
It would be nice if the market was fragmented and we could just draw up the gang plank and isolate ourselves from the effects of Middle Eastern oil problems. If you have a plan for that, you should share it with the State Department.
If we produce more of our oil and Middle Eastern oil keeps flowing then prices will go down. Remove a portion of ME oil and the total supply goes down with attendant price increases. There was a time, back in the 70s when the OPEC oil shocks occurred, that we should have made it our national goal to explore for more of our supplies and to break up the OPEC cartel, but we were too worried about the environment and the USSR to take the necessary steps. This piece by Robert Zubrin explains what might have been:
http://tinyurl.com/8ftdd56
We need to go on a national crusade to discover more of our oil, break up OPEC, and demand that those who depend on ME oil (China, Japan, India, Europe) to assume more responsibility for keeping the oil flowing.
In ten – twenty years we might be able to encourage inter-tribal/intra-Islamic conflcit and not have to worry as much about the energy blowback. At a gut level, the idea is very appealing to me.
As someone who spent a good part of my life burning jet fuel and knowing my job security rested on it being reasonably priced and available, I have thought a lot about oil and the part it plays in our security.