Let
me explain to you why the Obama Administration's propaganda leak effort
to prove that the president is tough on national security is nonsense.
Almost every example with two exceptions—a computer virus against Iran
and regime change in Libya--revolves around the willingness to combat or
kill al-Qaida leaders, including Usama bin Ladin.
There
has never been any question but that the Obama Administration views
al-Qaida as an enemy and a danger that should be wiped out. That isn’t
the problem. The problem is that this is the only factor that in the
world that this administration sees as a national security threat, since
al-Qaida is eager to launch direct attacks against targets on American
soil.
In
contrast, though, the administration does not act against any other
possible national security threat be it Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, North
Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, the Turkish
Islamist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, or anything else you can think
of. The administration obviously has shown its belief that engagement,
flattery, refusal to help their intended victims, and concessions can
win over these enemies.
It has even tried to redefine the Taliban as a group that can be
conciliated and given a share in a new Afghan government, despite its
involvement in September 11!
The
only partial exception to that list is Iran. Yet even there the Obama
Administration tried to avoid doing anything for almost three years.
Even now the government has been desperate to make a deal with Tehran
and it is only Iran’s intransigence—and preference for stalling—that
have prevented some bargain. Even on the Iran issue the administration
did less than Congress wanted and virtually exempted China, Russia, and
Turkey from having to observe the sanctions.
Thus,
the one other case of administration “toughness”
has been support for Israel’s strategy of using such delaying tactics
as computer viruses. Of course, the administration is happy at low-cost,
no-risk ideas to postpone its having to deal with Iran having nuclear
weapons.
During its term, the administration has also not been tough in terms of helping allies all over the world and a
few dozen governments have been very disappointed at U.S. policy.
In
Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has pursued withdrawal
strategies initiated by its predecessor. This choice seems wise but it
should be noted that the Obama Administration has been totally
ineffective in Iraq, where the political system is in serious trouble.
After all, with no U.S. effort to resolve the conflict in sight, the
Shia prime minister has put out an arrest warrant for the Sunni
vice-president on a charge of terrorism and the Kurdish president is
helping him hide out.
As
for Afghanistan, the possibility of a regime collapse and a Taliban
takeover is a very real danger that the administration has not been able
to counter. The administration favors a "moderate" Taliban
participation in government and has found no way, despite billions of
dollars of U.S. aid, to get Pakistan to stop backing the Taliban
That
leaves Libya. This intervention was done because the Arab League, UN,
and European Union all concurred, while the Qadhafi regime was an easy
target. It is not yet clear whether this operation will leave Libya
worse off and jeopardize U.S. interests. One might note that the Libyan
transitional government is stalling on elections, apparently because
these might result in a radical, anti-American Islamist regime or
regional conflict that would produce a new civil war. At any rate, it
was less a bold action than a mere going along with the crowd and
whether the operation was of any benefit to U.S. interests is still to
be seen.
Finally,
there is the jewel in the crown: the assassination of Usama bin Ladin.
The administration’s portrayal of this as some courageous decision shows
more than anything how weak it is. A normal U.S. government would have
taken this choice for granted and not felt the need to stress the
president’s alleged machismo. (Even Jimmy Carter didn't posture over the
comparatively brave decision to launch an armed rescue mission of the
U.S. hostages held in Iran.) Actually, given Obama’s worldview—don’t
make the Muslims mad, fear looking like a bully, ambiguity about the use
of force, panic lest failure have a political cost—it was indeed a hard
decision. But that supposed difficult pondering, by the White House's
own admission, precisely makes the point about this administration’s
weakness.
Generally,
the case of Obama being tough is sold by journalists leaving out all of
the points listed above. Indeed, they are often very vague about
specifics in making the case for a heroic Obama. In normal times, with a
media that made some serious effort at balance, they would be laughed
off the stage.
As
for the allegedly mysterious source of the leaks this is a joke. Anyone
who knows how these things work would have no doubt after reading the
relevant articles, especially in the New York Times. All of those
interviewed are former or current Obama appointees eager to make him
look good. These are the people who told the press about national
security secrets that relatively few people knew, especially in some
detail.
Do
these leaks endanger American soldiers and intelligence sources? Ask
those at the Pentagon who are outspokenly bitter about self-serving
Obama Administration leaks, the British services whose penetration of
al-Qaida was irresponsibly revealed, and the Pakistani doctor sentenced
to 33 years in prison for helping to get Obama without a huge U.S.
effort to get him released.
Finally,
here is Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post on what Obama is doing
wrong; Ambassador John Bolton on what Obama should be doing; and most
surprisingly of all the usually in-the-tank-for-Obama Nicholas Kristof
writing in the New York Times of his disgust at the president's
policy on Syria and Sudan.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just
been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The
Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab
Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About
Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his
blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment