Why, yes! Yes, he does.
By Barry Rubin
On the fourth anniversary of President Barack Obama’s Cairo
speech–setting the United States on a course of U.S.-backed Islamist
revolutions in the Middle East– it’s clear we’ve come a long way. Yet
there has still not been anything close to an agonizing reappraisal of
what has been done, said, and thought.
Here is an editorial from the 2011 New York Times:
“We sympathize with the frustration and anger that is drawing tens of
thousands of Egyptians into the streets of Cairo and other cities this
week, the country’s largest demonstrations in years. Citizens of one of
the Arab world’s great nations, they struggle with poverty — 40 percent
live on less than $2 a day — rising food prices, unemployment and
political repression.”
Where is this sympathy now?
So let’s see: Is the United States supporting an unpopular
dictatorship? Yes. Is it backing a country that is making a mess of
development and impoverishing the nation? Yes. A country threatening its
neighbors? Oppressing minorities and women? Yes. Are truly
pro-democratic people marching in the streets denouncing the United
States for selling them out? Yes. Is it a policy for which an American
president will apologize in the future? Yes.
And this time it is also on top of all that backing a regime that
hates the United States, even as it sends it hundreds of millions in
weapons and aid, too!
As one Egyptian Christian tweeted: “I must confess this: One of the
most painful moments for us was when we discovered that Official U.S.
did not support us but the Islamists.”
I am personally very happy because one of the world’s leading Middle
East experts helped me figure out what my task is. He explained: “You
say what everyone else sensible thinks.” So be it.
Several friends who work on the Middle East and have good sources of
direct information in Congress and the government spontaneously told me
that it is striking how clueless the Obama administration officials and
the foreign policy bureaucracy are about the Middle East. I think you
would be shocked to hear about how little people know no matter which side the officials and experts are on.
And I’m talking about people whose job it is to know about the region.
In professional intelligence circles, officers read things that
conflict with the official line but most of them are scared about losing
their jobs. They know what they are supposed to say. And it isn’t the
“I” word in any of its permutations.
But then my friends added an interesting point, in almost identical
words: It’s remarkable how America’s enemies fool them and the mass
media, too.
How many of those enthusiastically cheering on giving arms to the
Free Syrian Army really comprehend that they are going directly to the
Muslim Brotherhood? Even though they should know this, they don’t really
seem to comprehend who these people are and what this means. (We cannot
say it too often: the Muslim Brotherhood are unrepentant Nazi
collaborators, among other things.) There are about 300 nationalist
officers in Turkey, but all the soldiers in the field pretty much are
Brotherhood types (though not necessarily under the Muslim Brotherhood’s
direct discipline).
One of my friends recounted how during the Libyan operation, some
leading rebels praised Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida in interviews with
Arab newspapers, then the same day were praised as moderates in American
ones and portrayed favorably in interviews.
A lot of American reporters in Egypt genuinely like the Muslim
Brotherhood and have called them “nice guys” personally. In Lebanon,
we’ve seen a similar phenomenon with Hizballah, though there is an edge
of fear, too.
More productively, the BBC has suddenly discovered what
they and others ignored previously: Prime Minister Erdogan is a very
nasty elected dictator. They never seemed to have noticed that Turkey
has more reporters in prison than any other country; they never saw and
reported the intense intimidation of the mass media also.
(As an aside, in researching this article I accidentally discovered
for the first time that I had written a book translated into Turkish
titled Radikal Islam, which
was the first I ever heard of it. Guess this publisher just pirated and
translated it. As a friend told me many years go, “You are lucky they
left your name on it. ” I’ve been pirated in Iran, Turkey, and Lebanon —
which I guess is a good thing, but it would be nice if they told me
about it.)
One of the problems is that Americans with influence and power simply
seem incapable of comprehending that anyone can be a radical, a
militant, an ideological extremist, someone who really believes in
religion.
A good example is the ridiculous claim that Iran is now moderate. Read the embarrassing naiveté of Doyle McManus. The cutline for the story is:
“It’s hard to know how much of a moderate new President Hassan
Rowhani will be, but there are ways the U.S. could help him reach a
nuclear accord.’’
Actually, it is not at all hard. Rowhani is a veteran national
security official from the main faction of the regime which has now
ruled Iran for 34 (!) years. Sure, he’s moderate compared to his
predecessor, Ahmadinejad, but that’s not saying much.
The way things are going nowadays, though, perhaps Rowhani will get
the Nobel Peace Prize even before he does anything (like some other
world leader managed to do).
As a public service, let me give a short list on the next page that will save much time:
–The Iranian government does not want the United States to help them reach a nuclear accord.
–The Palestinian regime does not want the United States to help them reach a two-state solution.
–Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad does not want the United States to help him reach a diplomatic solution to who rules Syria.
–The Syrian rebels do not want the United States to help them reach a moderate democratic state in Syria. Here’s my favorite recent quote from
a rebel commander:
“Throughout history, nobody has suffered injustice
under the state of Islam – the state of truth and justice.”
With that
attitude I’m sure that things will be fine. Islam, he adds, must be the
sole source of law. His important group has been eligible to receive
weapons according to U.S. guidelines, though it won’t be trained and
armed directly by the U.S. government.
Moderate is an over-used word to say the least. The Free Syrian Army
has about 300 moderates sitting in Turkey and will now get arms to
distribute among its about 30,000 radical Islamist soldiers in Syria.
Incidentally, the mass media is really baffling and pitiful. On June 22 the New York Times reported
that the Syrian rebels are getting arms from Libya. I reported that
more than eight months ago and there were two UN reports discussing that
in detail last year! Maybe they should start reading the blogs. In
fact, during the Stalin era, it was said in hindsight that you got a
better picture of the USSR’s social conditions from reading Reader’s Digest than from reading the New York Times. That’s certainly true for the contemporary Middle East regarding the good blogs and sites.
In other matters, a reader asks about my recent writing on Egypt:
”Barry, A good piece! I grant that the West too often misread the
Mid-East. But what of the present troubles/demonstrations and fierce
critique towards [Egyptian President] Morsi and the MB? Is it only
‘futile’ rear-guard action from some liberals/reformists? Or are there
more people ‘out there’ truly seeing reality and wanting change
accordingly you think?”
My response is this: The problem is that the Egyptian opposition—like
the Turkish, Lebanese, Tunisian, and Syrian moderate forces–is very
disunited, very disorganized, and lacking support from any powerful
institution, namely the army.
They do, however, have some significant backing from the courts,
which are about to rule on the legality of the past elections. But I am
very pessimistic about the moderate opposition in all these countries,
especially because they can expect no support from the Obama
administration. Unless the army decides that things are really getting
out of hand — and I think it is going to take more than the present
situation to get them to go into action.
And remember that a large share of the army is Islamist and
supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. If the generals secretly know that
intervention would lead to a civil war within the army, they will not
act.
What the heck is the U.S. line on Egypt? To support the elected
repressive, anti-American, anti-Christian, antisemitic, anti-woman,
anti-gay regime which cannot even decide on taking billions of dollars
from international banks which would never be paid back?
Unhappiness is when you know that Iran’s regime is smarter than the U.S. government.
Maximum unhappiness means knowing that Iran’s, the Muslim
Brotherhood’s, al-Qaida’s, and Turkey’s leaders are smarter than
America’s.
“I told you! i didn’t break the Middle East! I think it was Obama,
and Hillary, and Panetta, and Kerry and Powers, and Hagel, and of course
Brennan. Did I mention Obama? Now let me go back to sleep like most of
the American public! ”
Related Reading:
http://tinyurl.com/loq2l3f
No comments:
Post a Comment