'Our' team in Syria
“…America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam.
We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a
grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that
people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and
children.”
-- President Obama, addressing “the Muslim World” from Cairo University, 4 June 2009
By Chris Stirewalt
President Obama’s vision for the Middle East is one in which Islamism
serves as a transitional stage between authoritarian rule and liberal
democracy.
The Islamist vision for the Middle East would say that he is half right.
Obama helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt, as he
and NATO allies did with Islamists in Libya. While Muslim theocrats
sound like unhappy partners for an American electorate accustomed to
unhappy outcomes with such folks (the mullahs of Iran and the Afghan
Taliban, to wit).
Obama’s Middle East doctrine, though, holds that under the oppressive
yoke of authoritarian, secular governments propped up by the Cold War
superpowers, legitimate political dissent was stifled. That means that
the only place Obama could find an opposition to replace those tottering
Cold War-era despots in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere was among those
looking to establish Muslim governments.
But, these would be tolerant Islamists, we were told. Their promise
of tolerance was secured in advance of providing the military,
diplomatic and economic support that put them in power.
There was much skepticism about the Obama Doctrine, since the limited
U.S. involvement with backing Islamists in the past – most notably
helping them drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan – didn’t end well.
Americans have been fighting in Afghanistan now for more than a decade,
have lost more than 2,200 sons and daughters and are still unable to
keep the main airport open. Our government is now negotiating with the
Taliban, seeking a peace accord that would return the Islamist
hardliners to the official government.
Perhaps the riots now unfolding in Egypt against the Muslim
Brotherhood government are the pangs of a great leap forward to a
Western-style, popularly elected secular government. Or, maybe not.
One of many Coptic Christians that have been crucified in Egypt
The current government in Cairo, even with lots of U.S. aid, finds
itself atop a nation of 90 million people hurtling toward economic ruin.
Religious persecution is on the rise and so are ethnic tensions. A
country that was once safe enough under U.S.-backed strongman Hosni
Mubarak for Obama to deliver his Address to the Muslim World just four
years ago, now sees U.S. college students murdered in the streets.
Will a new, liberal order arise out of this poverty and chaos or will
the even less tolerant, more authoritarian Islamists topple the more
moderate American-backed Islamists? Or will the military decide that
this experimentation with democracy has gone on long enough and again
install a junta? And if the generals take over again, will the Obama
Doctrine demand that they be cut off from aid? What happens then?
The current government in Cairo, even with lots of U.S. aid, finds itself atop a nation of 90 million people hurtling toward economic ruin.
In Libya, which was mostly in line with Western interests under zany
despot Muammar Quaddafi, Islamists sacked the American consulate and
killed the U.S. ambassador, and the Koranic militiamen armed by NATO who
are keeping the Obama-backed government in power seem to be losing
patience with reform.
But around the corner in Syria, the Obama Doctrine of transitional Islamism is facing its toughest test yet.
The repressive Assad regime has always been hostile to American and
Western interests, siding with Moscow and Tehran in the struggles of the
past 40 years. Plus, the secular government in Syria has long-oppressed
an ethnic/sectarian majority. This should make Damascus the best
candidate yet for regime change under the Obama Doctrine.
After a decade of fighting Americans around the region, Islamist
militants have their own plans for regime change. They’re not interested
in any power-sharing agreements or making any promises to obtain
Western aid.
These are the folks who are imposing Islamic law at the point of a
blade already. When news leaks out about a child executed in the street
for mocking the founder of Islam or a priest beheaded for sharing his
Christian faith, one wonders if there is any hope at all for
transitional anything.
The staunch American popular resistance to involvement in the Syrian
civil war may be a factor in Obama delaying his answer to the growing
global pleas to intervene to stop the genocidal conflict. But that
didn’t stop him in Libya, where he backed a preemptive war to prevent a
promised genocide.
More likely is that there are not enough good candidates for partners
under the Obama Doctrine – moderate Islamists who can offer hope of a
transitional, tolerant theocracy. But with Assad digging in and the al
Qaeda-style Islamists taking control of the rebellion, Obama has decided
to accelerate American aid anyway.
As for whom Obama is arming or what assurances we have that the
priest-beheading types are not getting any of the weapons our government
is providing, it’s not at all clear.
The Obama Doctrine promises transitional, tolerant theocracy in the
region. But what follows the transition may be far worse than the
secular strongmen of the Cold War era.
SoRo: The equivalent of 65.1 Americans engaged in 'street action' to protest economic imbecility, soaring food and fuel prices with
their attendant scarcity, skyrocketing crime, barbarity against the
Copts, regime brutality, hopelessness for generations of Egyptians, etc.
Try wrapping your mind around that number. It’s like more than half
of this year’s Superbowl audience got off of their sofas and took to
the streets in protests.
One wonders if President Obama seriously wants to or even can maintain his position of backing the MoFoBros in the wake of the largest political protest in the history of civilisation – all due to community organising, which I believe he claims to know something about and supports. Does he really want to be on ‘the wrong side of history,’ again?
Sadly, the answer is not as simple as it should be. Obama has the greatest ability of anyone that I’ve have ever seen to refuse to assess himself, understand when his policies are failing, ant to change course, but can he possibly continuing backing the Morsi government after the largest protest in world history?
He’s already become the ‘Rodney Dangerfield of World Politics.’ The Muslim World hates us more than it did when Bush was in office. Putin is kicking his ass and making him kiss his Superbowl ring. China has no respect for him. And, Iran, Turkey, which may be nearing a Tienanmen Square moment, and Syria laugh at his red lines knowing that they can ‘call his bluff’ better than Eric Cantor. Can he possibly not understand that he cannot continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood because, to do so, would rain further harm down upon himself, the country, and the world?
One wonders if President Obama seriously wants to or even can maintain his position of backing the MoFoBros in the wake of the largest political protest in the history of civilisation – all due to community organising, which I believe he claims to know something about and supports. Does he really want to be on ‘the wrong side of history,’ again?
Sadly, the answer is not as simple as it should be. Obama has the greatest ability of anyone that I’ve have ever seen to refuse to assess himself, understand when his policies are failing, ant to change course, but can he possibly continuing backing the Morsi government after the largest protest in world history?
He’s already become the ‘Rodney Dangerfield of World Politics.’ The Muslim World hates us more than it did when Bush was in office. Putin is kicking his ass and making him kiss his Superbowl ring. China has no respect for him. And, Iran, Turkey, which may be nearing a Tienanmen Square moment, and Syria laugh at his red lines knowing that they can ‘call his bluff’ better than Eric Cantor. Can he possibly not understand that he cannot continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood because, to do so, would rain further harm down upon himself, the country, and the world?
Related Reading:
http://tinyurl.com/mfsala6
No comments:
Post a Comment