Barack Obama’s rejection of George W. Bush’s Middle East policies in large part fueled his own meteoric rise to the top of American politics. He reviled the war in Iraq; criticized the one in Afghanistan; promised to close down Guantánamo, establish a new respect of Islam, and quickly solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Two years later, what is striking is how much Obama’s policies have come to reflect Bush’s — in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the “war on terror,” in the Arab-Israeli conflict, in the responses to turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt — and now in Libya, as the 3,400-word speech he gave last night exemplifies. Certain flourishes (such as the jibe at the costs of the Iraq effort), to be sure, reminded the audience who was speaking, but the overall theme of a noble United States working with allies to help an Arabic-speaking people in danger to win the freedom “to express themselves and choose their leaders” could have been spoken by his predecessor.
Obama’s rapid shedding of his own ideas and his adoption of Bush’s policies suggests that, however great their philosophical differences, Americans have reached a working consensus on Middle East policy.
— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
"Obama’s rapid shedding of his own ideas and his adoption of Bush’s policies suggests that, however great their philosophical differences, Americans have reached a working consensus on Middle East policy."
Ugh. If anything it just demonstrates how much the activist Right and the Wilsonian Left have come to dominate American politics. The public consensus on Libya is no way reflected in the President's actions, as the public simply doesn't know enough about Libya. Certainly no one is telling them that the "rebels" in eastern Libya are the fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaida.
Support for our intervention in Iraq and, particularly, Afghanistan is dropping daily, with the growing clarity that we have no idea what our purpose is in Afghanistan. ("Getting al-Qaida" doesn't cut it, especially when we're killing civilians, hoisting their body parts as trophies, and watching the civility and professionalism of our troops decline as the years of occupation go by.) When there is no clear purpose, bad behavior is guaranteed, and we are sowing the seeds of resentment for decades to come. How much more could we accomplish by pouring the billions and billions we are spending on these wars into better preventative intelligence and small-scale operations.
The Libyans deserve their own chance to have the opportunity to a long-overdue "Ceausescu moment". Why do we want to deprive them of it, and the chance for a real society to grow up there? Instead, we're inevitably going to name the wrong party as the "bad guy," and send Libya into another 50 years of ruthlessness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan I pronounce G-W-O like "GO!"? Because that's what I want him to do. Just go. And don't come back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's a uniter, not a divider.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Americans have reached a working consensus on Middle East policy."
No they haven't. The congruence between Obama's approach to the region and Bush's suggests no such thing. It suggests that America's ruling class has a progressive, utopian view of the Middle East. This is hardly surprising since the ruling class (of both parties) takes a progressive, utopian view of everything. There is no problem that the smart guys (and gals) can't solve, just ask them.
Does the business cycle cause anxiety? They can make it go away and decree limitless prosperity by stimulating the economy. Is the climate becoming less hospitable? Not to worry. They can manage it back to stability to the benefit of all. Is the Arab world backward and oppressed? They can take Arabia by the hand and lead it to the broad, sunlit uplands of democracy and freedom.
The only problem is that they can't do any of the things they set out to do. Those things are impossible and attempting to do them isn't wise, in fact, it's insane.
As Obama sounds increasingly like Bush the conclusion to draw is not that Obama is growing in office and becoming a more plausible President. The correct conclusion is that Bush badly lost his way. He was a fourth generation progressive Republican and he ended up doing what progressive Republicans always do when entrusted with power. They pursue progressive policies that attempt to achieve the impossible through the application of government power. And they fail.
We spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars trying to build a decent country in Iraq. It's a Sharia state destined to be our enemy. We are failing still more spectacularly in Afghanistan. We are willing to devote only a tiny fraction of the resources we are spending in those two unfortunate countries to Libya. We will get what we pay for. The result in Iraq will look like success next to what will unfold in Libya.
The freedom agenda is lunacy. It was lunacy under GWB, it's lunacy under Obama and most Americans who don't work for the federal government know it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Americans have reached a working consensus on Middle East policy"
I don't believe we have a policy that is 'working', with or without a consensus.
Develop our vast oil reserves, get out these places we're not wanted or useful, adopt a 'rubble don't make trouble' policy with the exception of sabotage and missile strikes for WMD efforts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Two years later, what is striking is how much Obama’s policies have come to reflect Bush’s"
His own ideas were too immediately inconvenient, politically, but you have to see the difference between moving forward from Bush's policies (problematic as they could be), prudentially amending them and updating them, which is not happening, and moving back toward Bush, principally as a head fake, and fighting the last war. Obama is never more than superficially interested in ideas that fall outside his ideology. But he will embrace anything along the way. This Libya action was not called for by Bush's approach, in my opinion, and the need for it would probably not even have arisen under Bush doctrine, which was not the constant signal of weakness this president transmits, with purpose. Certainly we can start with the realization that Islamists now have control of the Egyptian revolution, which constitutes no freedom agenda, and that they are equally likely to have control of the Libya revolution after, if not before, it succeeds, if it should succeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA conservative response to Obama
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf only we could be sure we will have a 'working consensus' on the survival of Israel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, ehm, no. Attributing bushian policies to Obama is an insult to the intelligence of Bush and of the readers.
Agree or not with it (I did, and do even more in retrospect), Bush had a carefully thought-out grand strategy (see External Link
, External Link 
). It was nearly ten years ago, remember. None of the fearmonger-spread alleged consequences of his actions ever materialized. The ME is a way better place (relatively speaking, of course) because of his policies.
Obama has no plan, and he makes it up amateurishly as he goes along. In addition, should he even get it right just by chance, he sends the wrong message to the nutcase tyrants of the world, namely that if you calm down and surrender wmd and the like we will bash you, if you are a brutal murderer and dictator seeking nuclear waepons and planning to wipe out Israel (syria and iran) we will call you a reformer and send wishes for new year's eve.
I agree pretty much with many things in this video: External Link
most of all:
He: "Does it concern you that this war is unpaid for ? That instead of the leader of the free world you got a patsy for the arab league and the UN ? Are you concerned that you president is spending more time golfing, vacationing, and watching college basketball than conferring with his generals ?"
She:"I don't care. Obama is cool and awesome. His bracket picks were outstanding too."
He: "So Obama is killing civilians in a preemptive, unfunded, undeclared war for oil promoted by the dictators of the Arab League along with the UN, in support of some unidentified rebels whom he's never met with, and you're OK with that ?"
She:"He is a man of peace. He even got the Nobel peace prize, just like Morgan Freeman."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we have a "do over" on the last Presidential election without having to wait for 2012?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse