Barry Rubin
When the authors of the Democratic platform’s sections dealing with the Middle East—I dealt with the section on Israel in a previous article—finished
it they were no doubt quite satisfied. They felt that they had built a
strong case for reelected President Barack Obama along the following
lines:
America
is more secure and popular. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are on the run.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ending. America is supporting
democracy, women’s rights, and gay rights around the world. Isn’t this
great leadership? How could anyone not vote for Obama?
When
I read the platform I am shocked and disappointed. I can pick at the
issues of popularity, Afghanistan and Iraq. But the failure to deal with
revolutionary Islamism is ridiculously glaring (they didn’t use the
tiniest fig leaf to cover themselves), making a mockery about the
democracy and human rights’ pretensions. The treatment of Middle East
allies is shockingly insulting. The issues of Syria and Egypt are simply
dodged. There is not a single mention of the opposition in Iran. All
terrorists not involved directly in the September 11, 2001, attacks are
ignored. There is not the slightest hint that any regional strategy
exists at all.
Not
a single word implies that the United States is willing to help allies
fight revolutionary Islamist threats. In fact, the words “Islam” and
“Muslim” do not appear once, even in some discussion of good Muslims
versus bad radical heretics. They could have said something like: "Islam
is a religion of peace but there are some extremists who wish to
distort its teachings, take power, and institute repressive and
anti-American dictatorships. We support our allies in defending
themselves against these threats and support true democratic reformers
in fighting against such oppressive forces that deny equality to women,
religious minorities, and gay people." But they didn't even do that.
If
they don’t even see the main threat at all how can one trust such
people to rule the country and provide leadership in the region?
What
can American allies in the region—aside from Israel--expect from
President Obama to protect them from internal revolutionaries,
international terrorists, and revolutionary Islamist states?
Here’s the passage in its entirety:
Here’s the passage in its entirety:
“President
Obama is committed to maintaining robust security cooperation with Gulf
Cooperation Council states and our other partners aimed at deterring
aggression, checking Iran's destabilizing activities, ensuring the free
flow of commerce essential to the global economy, and building a
regional security architecture to counter terrorism, proliferation,
ballistic missiles, piracy, and other common threats.”
That’s
all you get, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates! How confident are
you in Obama’s leadership?
Well, here's the lead of a Reuters story on
this topic that came out during the Democratic convention "The rise of
the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological affiliates in the Arab Spring
uprisings has stoked fears among Gulf Arab governments that the United
States may one day abandon its traditional allies as it warms up to
Islamists."
Back to the platform. Let’s get the bragging out of the way first:
“When
President Obama took office in January 2009, our armed forces were
engaged in two wars. Al- Qaeda, which had attacked us on 9/11, remained
entrenched in its safe havens. Many of our alliances were strained, and
our standing in the world had diminished. Around the world and here at
home, there were those who questioned whether the United States was
headed toward inevitable decline.”
On
one hand, whatever George W. Bush’s faults he had already essentially
won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as much as that was possible) and
dislodged al-Qaeda from its “safe havens.” Obama criticized the strategy
that won in Iraq. So that’s a lie.
Quite
true, alliances were strained, standing in the world had diminished,
and there were those who asked if the United States was in inevitable
decline. The problem is that, generally speaking, the situation is
worse—certainly in the Middle East--in all three categories three years
later.
There
follows a long section on “Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq,” which
credits Obama for pulling out American troops and implying that Romney
and other Republicans would have left American combat troops there
forever. In fact, I think it is quite fair to say that there was a
consensus that the U.S. role was coming to an end. I believe a
Republican president would have done precisely the same thing that Obama
did. Pulling out the troops was a correct move so Obama can claim
credit for it but not as his unique idea.
The optimism about Iraq’s future is even more questionable:
“Moving
forward, President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to
building a robust, long- term strategic partnership with a sovereign,
united, and democratic Iraq in all fields—diplomatic, economic, and
security—based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”
In
fact, Iraq analysts discuss how difficult and dangerous the situation
is in the country today and how the Obama Administration has done
nothing to try to make it better.
On
Afghanistan we are told: Obama “”refocused our efforts there in 2009,
setting the clear goal of defeating al-Qaeda and denying it an ability
to reestablish a safe haven in Afghanistan,” as if Bush had never
thought of that idea. But in fact it also claims Obama was able to
“reverse the Taliban's momentum and to give the Afghans the time and
space to build the capacity of their security forces. We have
accomplished that, and now we have begun the process of bringing our
troops home from Afghanistan,”
While
I support the withdrawal it is well-known among Afghan experts that the
Taliban is actually doing well, that the Afghan security forces are
seriously flawed, and that Obama’s administration has played footsy with
the Taliban. After a U.S. withdrawal anything is possible. Also the
whole problem of Pakistan’s betrayal of U.S. trust (and ample funding)
is not mentioned anywhere.
The
section on al-Qaeda includes legitimate Obama Administration successes
but can’t help but tendentiously imply that Bush was losing the war and
that only Obama succeeded. The closing line of this section though
contains a very important hint for understanding the problem with Obama
policy:
“…We
are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill
Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our
interests around the world.”
This
is nonsense. There is an unrelenting pursuit of al-Qaeda but hardly of
terrorists attacking allies, partners, and even interests. Think: Muslim
Brotherhood, Salafists, Hamas, Hizballah, the Syrian regime (until it
broke down in civil war), terrorist forces in Syria, and even Iran
(whose operations in Iraq to kill Americans are an open secret).
Two
of the most interesting of the platform’s sections deal with Iran and
support for democracy. Revealingly, the discussion of Iran is under the
heading, “Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons.” In other
words, it isn’t that Iran poses some special threat but is just part of
the overall need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, including the
American ones.
Naturally,
it talks about the sanctions put on Iran—nicely sharing credit with
“international powers and Congress.” But it also includes some whoppers:
“When
President Obama took office, Iran was ascendant in the region, and the
international community was divided over how to address Iran's nuclear
violations.”
Really?
The fact is that Iran was hardly ascendant and the international
community—except for such countries as Turkey, Russia, and China that
have never changed their line—was ready for serious action. It just took
Obama two long years to show leadership.
“Working
with our European allies and with Russia and China, the administration
gained unprecedented agreement for the toughest ever UN sanctions
against Iran….” That’s true but doesn’t mention that their agreement was
gained by exempting them from the sanctions. The rest is pretty much
standard policy that using diplomacy and pressure is best but other
options including military force remain on the table.
The
problem, though, is that Iran is never addressed as a strategic
problem, involving its wider strategy of subversion and seeking regional
hegemony. That is a big weakness in Obama policy, for example not
mentioning Iran’s sponsorship of anti-American terrorism in Iraq and
elsewhere. Why? Because this might add pressure to do something about
Iran and also bringing up the dreaded subject of radical Islamism and
the fact that Tehran leads a bloc of allies that Obama was reluctant to
touch.
Finally,
there is a section extolling the kind of policy that the very same
people would have ridiculed and reviled (and not incorrectly, by the
way) a couple of years ago as Bush’s “neo-conservatism”:
“Across
the Middle East and North Africa, we have stood with the people
demanding political change and seeking their rights during the Arab
Spring. Since the beginning of the protests in Tunisia, the United
States has consistently opposed violence against innocent civilians,
supported a set of universal rights for the people of the region, and
supported processes of political and economic reform. When the Egyptian
people flooded Tahrir Square in Cairo demanding democracy, the
administration actively engaged the Egyptian government, military, and
people in support of a transition away from decades of dictatorship and
towards democracy.”
What
can one say? The administration pushed out an allied government, then
pressed against America’s best friends there, and helped produced a
“democracy” that is hourly now headed toward being an anti-American
dictatorship. There is no hint of any of these problems. And by the
way—let’s make this clear—the administration didn’t just support the
moderate liberal reformers but the anti-democratic Islamists.
Incidentally, do any of those “universal rights” contradict Sharia law?
There’s
a sentence on Libya (a relative success story) and Yemen (a disaster
but what else is new?) Most interesting is the discussion of Iran and
Syria.
Here
is Iran, officially declared by the United States as the world’s
leading sponsor of terrorism, a country murdering Americans in Iraq and
elsewhere, and a place where a massive opposition has been crushed. So
what does the platform say about that?
“In
Iran, President Obama spoke out in support of the pro-democracy
protestors and imposed human rights sanctions on the Iranian
government.”
Yes,
that’s it. What human rights sanctions? How about: We support the
Iranian people in struggling against and overthrowing a brutal
dictatorship. And by the way we’re sorry we didn’t say anything when the
regime stole the election and shot down demonstrators in the street but
instead congratulated President Ahmadinejad on his reelection.
Concerning Syria:
“We
have led the international community to politically and economically
isolate the regime, to increase pressure on President Assad to step
down, and to provide assistance to unify the Syrian opposition in order
to enable a stable transition. Moving forward, we will work to hasten
the end of the Assad regime and support a political transition to a
stable and democratic Syria.”
Or,
in other words, we acted as if Assad was our good buddy for more than
two years and flattered him, then when we had to we finally recognized
what he was like and we are giving guns to the Muslim Brotherhood and
Salafists to take over. Oh yes and we organized a transitional council
dominated by anti-American Islamists.
Oh, I forgot they cannot talk about revolutionary Islamism.
If
you want to talk about a war on women, note that the platform has a
whole section of vague promises about “Standing up for Women’s Rights
around the Globe” followed by one on “Gay Rights as Human Rights.” Given
the failure to deal with the treatment of women and gays (not to
mention Christians) by Islamists, this is a joke. Radical Islamism
trumps everything including “universal values.”
Let
us imagine a party platform in, say, 1950, that didn’t mention
Communism, devoted just a few sentences to the USSR, ignored supporting
the liberation of the satellite states, and put forward no strategy for
dealing with this challenge. Liberals and Democrats (some because they
are radicals in disguise; others because they are intimidated) met the
challenge of the Cold War. They are not facing up to this one.
At
first glance and to the general public, the Middle East and
international affairs sections of the Democratic platform might seem
impressive. In fact, they show an administration while it can claim
some credits—often for merely continuing predecessors’ policies—is going
to be extremely dangerous if it rules for four more years.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment