Chamberlain would have recognised the Obama Doctrine.
By Barry Rubin
A statement from two National Security Council senior staff members has revealed the private deliberations of President Barack Obama and his administration. It is of incredible importance, and I plead with you to read it. If you do, you will comprehend fully what’s happening with U.S. foreign policy.
First: Egypt, Egypt, Egypt. There are more words written about this event than there are demonstrators in Tahrir Square. But what does it mean for the future? Note that in the face of advancing totalitarianism in the Middle East, U.S. policy completely failed. Imagine what would have happened with the Nazis without Winston Churchill and Great Britain in the 1940s. The U.S. government of today 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 against totalitarianism there? The people of Iran and Turkey, who have not won in part because the United States failed to encourage the former and did not encourage the Turkish army to do what the Egyptian army did; the embattled Tunisian and Lebanese ant-Islamists; the Saudis (at times); and the Persian Gulf Arabs (except for Qatar) and Jordan.
Oh, yes: also Israel, the most slandered and falsely reviled country on Earth.
This background leads us to Barack Obama’s Big Decision. In Egypt, is he 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 remarkable irony: Obama endlessly apologized for past U.S. support for dictators, then ended up adding a new chapter to that history and further stoked anti-Americanism. Remember that during 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 remaining questions are regarding how much recognition he will offer and for how long he will resist doing it. Pitifully, we must realize 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 about punishment for the coup, but in fact be offering a rich reward to show others which way the wind blows.
Will Obama learn 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, it looks like Obama is determined to be the protector of oppressive dictatorship in Egypt, which Obama formerly complained about when prior presidents did just that. Specifically, U.S. diplomats are now urging a deal: a coalition government in Egypt in which the Brotherhood has part of the power.
You can imagine how well that would work, and how grateful the Brotherhood (much less the Salafists) and their opponents will be to Obama for proposing they surrender. In other words: the army, the former opposition, and the Islamists … in short, all of the Egyptian people, no matter which side they are on, will see America as an enemy.
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 this on July 4 in a statement.
I don’t recall such a statement ever 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, the critical statement that explains Obama’s Middle East policy. Pay close attention:
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 statement implying? Remember this is a White House policy statement.
It clearly notes that the White House believes that if the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps the Salafists are denied power in Muslim-majority countries, they cannot be defeated, and further, will be radicalized to pursue 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.
But: we now have a public statement describing a coherent Obama policy. Inquire no more, this is it.
This is why, for example, Obama wants the Turkish and Egyptian armies to accept an Islamist regime, why he is for Syria getting one too, and why he wants Israel to accept whatever risks and to make whatever concessions are required to end the conflict right away no matter what the consequences. (Though American officials say that the demographic issue — which is simply nonsense — means that Israel better make the best deal possible now.)
American allies cannot win, and if they try, they’ll just make the Islamists angrier.
The White House, it is forgotten now, even wanted to overthrow the pro-American regime in Bahrain, and might have helped them replace it if the Saudis hadn’t stopped them.
I am not joking. I wish I were.
Remember what the two NSC staffers said in representing Obama policy, because it deserves to be recorded for 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 current CIA director John Brennan’s Doctrine has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for releasing (which means 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. The theme is consistent as just another way of protecting the American people while accumulating more votes.
It should be emphasized that, aside from everything else, this is a ridiculous U.S. strategy because the Brotherhood and Salafists haven’t even thought of this tactic.
This isn’t just a surrender; it’s a preemptive surrender.