A New Kind of American Assertiveness

The Obama administration has been receiving quite a lot of flack with regards to their conduct on recent upheaval in the Middle East.  Some of my favourite writers, such as Barry Rubin, have been claiming that the administration is completely oblivious to the ways of the Middle East and are incapable to get a clear read on it. It's hard to argue with the facts...

But what would you say to the idea that the administration, and American foreign policy in general, simply does not care for the ways of the Middle East and don't care to get a clear read of it?

So the execution is not smooth? Who said they care much for a smooth execution?

Doesn't history show us that American foreign policy is cynical and self serving?

So now I will tie it to what's been going on in the Middle East recently.

Obama on Libya - Live

The POTUS is now addressing the world about the recent events in Libya.

Will it be another vacuus, empty speech as usual? 

We shall see!

'We condemn the violence in Libya... blah blah blah... Not only us, but even the Arabs!'

The Libyan government must be made accountable, and held accountable. This must be an international effort. HRC (which ironically, Libya is a proud member of) will be convened in Geneva and Obama is sending Hillary there.

'This is a change driven by the people...'.

Overall, not anything dramatic or substantial. The administration is maintaining its firm line of supporting the protest movements in the Middle East.

However, no mention whatsoever of Muammar Gaddafi. Not outlining the type of change that America concretely wants to see.

I hope that this means he is sending Clinton to bitchslap the Europeans who have been in bed with Gaddafi for about a decade now.

Obama is AWOL

So now we know, Iranian warships are going to cross the Suez canal and unload munitions headed for Syria and Hizbullah.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Qardawi, has returned to Egypt and held a mass prayer that makes the demonstrations of the last couple of weeks look like a small campfire gathering of a few buddies.

Qardawi is perhaps the single most influencial radical islamist preacher in the world. This is Egypt's Khomeini, who has been in exile in Qatar. Incidentally, it's the same Qatar who has been promoting a false narrative of the events of Egypt in order to speed-up the collapse of the government there via their propaganda arm, Al-Jazeera.

In the last few days, we see all of America's strategical interests in the Middle East falling apaprt and the administration is AWOL.

-QP

Dan Carlin: Common Sense

Every two weeks or so, independent-minded commentator, Dan Carlin releases a current affairs podcast 'Common Sense'.

The last episode is titled 'The Obama Doctrine'. As always, I enjoyed listening to Dan's show, which is informative, interesting, and thought provoking. In the very recent installment however, I found myself often not convinced by Dan's train of thought.

What Dan refers to as the Obama Doctrine is a generalization of Obama's reaction to the recent uprising in Egypt. Obama seemed to take a stand for a transition towards democracy, coming out in support of the legitimate wishes of the Egyptian population. Under this approach, Obama should have also aggressively came out in favor of the demonstrators in Iran over a year a go.  Unfortunately his archive store is a little disorganized and it's hard to locate Dan's relevant episode and compare his reactions to the two popular uprisings in the Middle East.

What bewilders me is that Dan is usually somewhat of an 'isolationist', taking the position that the US should not interfere globally. However, all of a sudden when an opportunity of supporting  a popular struggle for democracy comes, he is for intervention. He also asks whether the risk of a popular islamist regime that will choose to fight American interests and go to war with Israel, is enough of an impetus to suppress the desires of the people. His only condition for support of any Egyptian democratically elected government is that the maintain the democratic process going.

Obama Killing Arab Dictators, Almost Literally

Obama had quite a conversation with the Saudi king about the situation in Egypt earlier today. It seems as though the American leader presented quite a heavy handed approach that was difficult for his Saudi octogenarian counterpart to swallow.

After the conversation, king Abdullah has collapsed with a heart attack, making oil prices jump by as much as a buck per barrel:

Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz is alive, a source close to the monarch said on Thursday denying reports of his death.

"The king is presently in Morocco; he is in good health and good spirits. The report on his death is untrue," the source in Morocco said.

Islamtimes.org web portal reported on Thursday that King Abdullah suffered a sudden heart attack after a phone conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama, during which they discussed the events in Egypt.

The portal said doctors were unable to save the king and he was pronounced dead, but "his death was not reported due to the sensitive conditions that exist in the region."

Obama's Response: Live

Obama is about to address Mubarak's earlier announcement. It was scary to watch how Obama has humiliated America's closest ally in the Arab World while snuggling up to the much worse despot in Syria.

American policy in the Middle East is falling apart and all other Arab/Muslim states are taking notice.

Obama's speech is about to begin, I will update this post very soon!

UPDATE: a rather long delay. Perhaps some intense, last minute strategy deliberations in the bowels of the White House? Perhaps Obama is just on a smoke break...

Meanwhile: a Fox News Panel discusses the possibility of El Baradaei being a 'transitional' leader, having already garnered the support of the dominant opposition group the Muslim Brotherhood. Charles Krauthammer correctly recognizes it's a bad idea.

Here's Obama!

Obama says that based on his conversation with Mubarak, the Egyptian president recognizes that a peaceful transformation of his country is necessary.

Obama follows with some wishy-washy statements about 'Universal Values' and about the need for democratic transformation.

Obama says that he believes the Egyptian people should take their destiny in their own hands. All nice and fuzzy in theory, but can Obama point to a recent Middle Eastern example where this ended up going well?

Speech is over. I am disappointed. Obama was very vague and didn't say much new. Didn't shed any light on his conversation with Mubarak. However, the speech itself was very well written and showed cautious optimism, without explicitly taking sides.

Damned if we Do, Damned if we Don't!

America is often criticized for bolstering authoritarian regimes of the most despicable type. It is frequently pointed out that America has a vested interest in its foreign policy dependencies to be repressive, brutal regimes that will strictly protect America's geopolitical aims, at whatever means.

It is true that in the past it has happened. America did help instigate coup d'etat in many cases. They supported militarily regimes of the most unsavory kind.

But is this some foreign policy conspiracy to keep other nations down while America dictates the terms?

I don't think so...

Let's look at some of America's closest allies:

Canada, UK, Australia - Westminster style parliamentary democracy. By all counts, freedom and personal liberties are fairly high.

Germany, Japan - A brutal dictatorship that was transformed under American military occupation into a very free and liberal democratic state.

And of course I can add many more... For example, Israel's typical government survival rate is probably shorter than the president's Press Secretary's typical tenure. 

So why is America of bolstering dictators at the expense of the liberties of its people?

I think the answer is pretty simple... American bolsters cooperative dictators in countries where liberty and democracy are not happening, anyway. I think most would agree that the Shah's autocratic rule is much preferable to the current Islamic Republic. In fact it seems most Iranians would agree!

In the current situation, America is in a position of 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If they help Mubarak stay in power, they are accused of supporting an autocrat. If they don't, they will be shamed for dumping their staunchest ally in the region (Israel aside), as our favourite 'liberal democrat' Hugo Chavez did very recently.

Whichever way this revolution goes, it will be bad for Israel, bad for America and probably very bad for Egyptians.

-QP