A
statement by two National Security Council senior staff members has
revealed the inner thinking of President Barack Obama. It is of
incredible importance and I plead with you to read it. If you do you
will comprehend fully what's going on with U.S. foreign policy.
Egypt,
Egypt, Egypt…There are more words written about this event than
demonstrators in Tahrir Square. But, what, to quote a recent secretary
of state, difference does it make? A great deal.
First,
let’s remember that in the face of advancing totalitarianism in the
Middle East, U.S. policy completely failed. Imagine, if your wish,
what would have happened with the Nazis without Winston Churchill and
Great Britain in the 1930s. The U.S. government of this day was not only
ready to leave Middle Easterners to their fate;
it even sided with their actual or potential oppressors.
So
who has been waging the battle meanwhile? The people of Iran and
Turkey, who have not won because in part the United States failed to
encourage the former and did not encourage the Turkish army to do what
the Egyptian army did do; the embattled Tunisian and Lebanese
ant-Islamists; the Saudis (at times) and the Persian Gulf Arabs (except
for Qatar) and Jordan. Oh yes, and also Israel the most slandered and
falsely reviled country on earth.
And this leads to…Barack Obama’s Big Decision
Is
President Obama going to come down on the side of the Islamist
ex-regime, remember this includes the Salafists in objective terms, or
the new regime? What a remarkable irony that Obama endlessly apologized
for past U.S. support for dictators and ended up adding a new chapter to
that history and heightened anti-Americanism! Remember that one of his
last conversations with ex-President Muhammad al-Mursi, Obama told him
that he still regarded him as the democratically elected president of
Egypt.
Of
course, Obama will have to end up recognizing the new government. The
question is how much and how long he will resist that? It is pitiful to
know that the best possible result is that he will accept the rulers in
Cairo and continue the economic aid. In fact, he should increase it. We
should not be talking punishment for the coup but in fact a rich reward,
to show others which way the wind blows.
And
will Obama learn more
lessons from this situation. Will he stop seeking to install a regime
in Syria that is worse than Mursi’s? Will he increase support for the
real Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions? Will he recognize the
true strategic realities of Israel and stop seeking to install a regime
like Mursi’s in the territories captured by Israel in 1967 (I refer here
to Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority which might well give way to
Hamas after a state would be established?)
So
far though, it looks like Obama is determined to be the protector of
oppressive dictatorship in Egypt. Isn’t that what Obama complained about
what previous presidents had
done? The Obama Administration has called on Egyptian leaders to
pursue, “A transparent political process that is inclusive of all
parties and groups,” including “avoiding any arbitrary arrests of Mursi
and his supporters,” Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National
Security Council, said July 4 in a statement.
I don’t recall such a statement being made in criticism of the Mursi regime. According to Bloomberg News,
“Two U.S. officials who asked not to be identified commenting
on[Obama\s]private communications said the administration is concerned
that some in the military may want to provoke the violence and provide a
rationale for crushing the movement once and for all.”
Then comes a critical statement that explains Obama
Middle East policy. Pay close attention to this:
“Such
a move would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type
terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and
elsewhere, the U.S. officials said.”
What
is this saying? Remember this is a White House policy statement. That
of the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps the Salafists are denied power in
Muslim-majority countries they cannot be defeated but that they will be
radicalized so that they will launch September 11 style attacks on
America.
In
other words, the United States must surrender and betray its allies or
else it faces disaster. This is called surrender and appeasement. And,
besides, such a move would
fail. There is a coherent Obama policy. Inquire no more, that is it.
And
that’s why, for example, it wants the Turkish, Tunisian, and Egyptian
armies of accepting an Islamist regime; and Syria for getting one, too;
and Israel making whatever risks or concessions required to end the
conflict right away no matter what the consequences. American allies
cannot win and if they try they’ll just make the Islamists angrier. I am
not joking. I wish I were.
Remember what the two NSC staffers said, in representing Obama policy because they deserve and may well go down in history:
“Such
a move [fighting the Islamists in Egypt] would fail and probably prompt
a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the
Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere.”
The
Obama Administration, on the basis of the John Brennan Doctrine—the
current CIA director—has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and
the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for
releasing (not attacking) the United States is the Middle East.
Naturally,
this is also involved in domestic politics since the Obama
Administration will be largely judged by voters—including in the 2014
congressional elections—on whether they can prevent such (imaginary)
attacks. Contingent with all the other things to keep Muslims happy,
this is the tie-in.
The
Benghazi affair was the model of their worldview: If you allow a video
insulting Muslims, four American officials will be killed. If you
support
the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, thousands of
Americans might die. This is the result of placing not politics but
counterterrorism in command.
It
should be emphasized that aside from everyone else, this is a
ridiculous U.S. strategy because the Brotherhood and Salafists haven’t
even thought about this tactic. This isn't just a surrender; it's a preemptive surrender.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)
Center http://www.gloria-center.org
Forthcoming Book: Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale University Press)
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
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.tandfonline.com/loi/ftur20#.UZs4pLUwdqU
1 comment:
Regardless of Obama's motives, what has happened is this:
Egyptians were finally allowed (partially) to make a choice. The choice was stollen via certain machinations from some and many of those who chose chose exceptionally--but predictably--poorly.
Their choice, the Muslim Brotherhoods, spent their time in power pissing people off, demonstrating that they had no answer to problems like corruption and good governance or even any plain sanity. Support for their movement has fallen to say the least. The only problem with all of this is that many voters are slow learners and Morsi may have been removed a bit too soon. For people to make good choices they need to experience the repercussions of bad ones, not kept from choosing at all. Hell, given the trends in Hamas' approval rating, even Gazans may start to harvest the fruit of the clue tree.
Post a Comment