At some point, the Obama administration is going to recognize a simple paradox that has been apparent to almost everyone but them: In theory, those pro-American autocratic regimes that are tottering or gone (the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.) should have been more amenable to gradual progressive change. They did not exercise so savage a degree of control as was the norm elsewhere in the Middle East. In matters of religious fundamentalism and intolerance, they were sometimes more reasonable than their own populaces. They were less likely to foment unrest in the region at large, seek to acquire WMD, or harbor terrorists.
In contrast, totalitarian autocratic regimes that are anti-American (Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.) are far crueler — and far less likely to fall, given their readiness to use unlimited violence against their own. They were often more rabid in their ideologies than their own populations, and far more likely to foment unrest in the region at large, etc.
Given that paradox, it seems like it would have been a viable policy for the U.S. to gently urge change in the former nations while avoiding calls for their abrupt collapse, and openly support dissidents in the latter nations while communicating a clear, though private caveat that, with a $1.6 trillion deficit and two large commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could not readily provide direct military support and so rebels should not be misled into attempting revolutions that could only succeed with our sizable intervention.
Instead, we ended up largely silent in the cases of Syria and Iran, and vocal in the cases of Tunisia and Egypt. In Libya, we intervened and then quit, earning disdain from the rebels and the Qaddafi government alike. All this against a backdrop of having spent two years apologizing for fostering a viable consensual government in Iraq, and two years of constant pressure on democratic Israel. The result may well be escalating oil prices, alienation from the Gulf kingdoms, Islamist-Turkey-like states on all Israel’s borders, open disdain for our weakness from emboldened states such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, and utter distrust from any pro-American allies left in the region that might be contemplating gradual change to preempt rebellion.
What is left? Perhaps the administration has no interest in defending (rather than apologizing for) the past conduct of the United States in the Middle East, no idea of how one country differs from another in that region, no idea of what our general interests are (e.g., stable oil prices; responsible nations that oppose radical Islam, fight terror, and oppose nuclear proliferation; reasonable buffer states with Israel; and gradual change in the direction of economic openness and political transparency), and no confidence to see our decisions through. If so, it would be wiser just to shut up and keep out of the region rather than to make a bad situation far worse, which is what we accomplishing now.
Unfortunately we don't have people in the State Department with the foresight of VDH. I've been monitoring the situation of our 5th Fleet which guards our interest in the 40% of the world's oil supply that flows through that area. Our situation in Bahrain where we have had a 65 year relationship is tenuous at best. I watched YouTube entries from Bahrain detailing the "peaceful protest" there. As per the usual, one can't make heads or tails out of what is true. But I will say, I saw an image of a death that exceeds the horror of the Daniel Pearl execution I forced myself to watch years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps the ineptness of the current government here has been exaggerated in order to get the voters to accept a smaller role in world affairs, since all we seem capable of doing is blundering about in confusion. Sometimes I think the world is like a bullfight and we are the bull. Someone waves a red flag and we snort in annoyance. It waves again, we get annoyed. We charge and get lances poked into our hides, making us angry and weakening us as we lose blood and strength. The flag-waver stands the danger of being fatally gored, but the prospect of killing the bull seems to be worth the danger.
A smaller role in world affairs will make us helpless. Others will do as they please until we start standing up for ourselves and fighting to win. We didn't used to have to go to war against everybody, because we could intimidate them through the show of force (i.e. by sending some battleships on maneuvers in their neighborhoods). Now it seems as though our forces are viewed less like threats and more like voluntary targets. This cannot end well for us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a supporter of the Iraq War like Hanson to title a post "First, Do No Harm in the Middle East" bespeaks an incredible lack of self-reflection...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@linearheights...To dismiss and compare our original and subsequent aims in Iraq so facilely is ludicrous. The very things being celebrated and embraced now by the likes of our President and his State Dept. MAY have worked in Iraq if it weren't for the incessant undermining of those efforts by the likes of them and those in the media for 8 years. But I don't believe they care. It's clearly all politics to them, evidenced by their unprincipled actions 180 degrees from their campaigning rhetoric.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI’m not at all surprised by current events. I knew enough about Obama BEFORE he was elected, so I was able to avoid disappointment AFTER he was elected.
By way of only one example, there was Stanley Kurtz’s excellent: “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools”: External Link
Other examples abound. The bottom line is: “What could you expect from a community organizer who spins like a weather vane in a windstorm?”
I read, and I believe, that it would take two election cycles to “put paid” to the disastrous Obama administration. 2010 was a GREAT start. Hopefully, 2012 will visit upon Democrats a rain of ruin the like of which never has been seen in American politics (thank you, Harry Truman).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe United States should stay out of any and all entangling alliances regarding the Middle East countries. They are religious and will remain so despite the money and arms we pour into the region.
Bush's 'Evangelical Democracy' and Obama's 'Humanitarian Imperialism' will not make one wit of difference for all our righteous sense that the world is waiting to be free and individual.
We forget that the United States is different in coming to a republican form of government - for all intents and purposes isolated from the wider world for nearly three centuries so that we could develop our institutions and values apart from an oppressive world.
The Middle East doesn't have that luxury now nor will it have any time soon. We are a fortunate people who are, sadly, throwing away all the treasures of the past in an egregious attempt to save the world from itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresidential elections always bring up the issue of character.
For 2008, the character issue for Barack Obama was his lack of personal courage, as evidenced by his record of voting 'Present' in the Illinois legislature.
That lack of courage leads directly to his foreign policy failures: fear of confronting our enemies abroad, fear of offending his idealogical allies at home and endless efforts to ingratiate himself with our adversaries. The result was a President completely comfortable in pressuring only American allies, as their response would naturally be less fearsome that those of our enemies.
School children readily understand these errors after encountering their first bully in the playground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, but if he knows EVERYTHING, and is always right, is morally superior, compassionate, etc. then he owes the world the benefit of his pronouncements.
You might think it would take G*d to be all that, but libs and Øbama know better. It appears all he has to do to fix Syria is say something and exercise his will, or maybe frown, because there is certainly no real-world threat left.
How long before we have to capitalize his pronouns?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBefore the Saudi government gives full vent to it's frustration & disappointment with the Obama administration it must first protect it's financial assets within the American financial system. These assets are subject to the same seizure & hostage taking as were the Libyan assets over the last three months.
A nightmare scenario will be triggered if the Chinese observe a Saudi run on the dollar and decide to follow suit. The dollar will drop like a stone; oil import costs will sky rocket. In a flash the dollar could lose it's status as the international currency. The consequences are unthinkable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI makes one wonder, whose side is he one? Is he one of us? Does he care about America's welfare? Why did he want to become the president? It just doesn't make sense. Is there an ulterior motive?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is ANYONE surprised at anything this President does. Look at who his advisors and mentors are. A more open group of anti-American, anti-Capitalist leftists you could not find.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse