Mubarak under the bus
Our Arab allies (yes, we have them) are miffed that President Obama has been so eager to abandon Mubarak.
It’s no surprise they feel this way. They understand that Obama’s actions mean they could be next, and they “fear the U.S. is opening the door for Islamist groups to gain influence and destabilize the region.”
Well, I fear it too, as does any thinking person who knows anything about the region.
Let’s see: Obama fails to support the demonstrators in Iran; his rhetoric is tepid at best. But he throws his weight behind the ones in Egypt and speaks actively and early for Mubarak’s removal. I can think of no benign reason why this disparity would occur, except that perhaps he’s a slow learner. But it is difficult to believe that’s what’s going on. It seems purposeful and strategic, and sends a message to our other allies in the region.
Pride and face are especially important in the Arab world:
Another Arab official from a government aligned with Washington said the Obama administration seems to be humiliating Mr. Mubarak, despite his close cooperation over the years. This could lessen the willingness of Arab states to cooperate with Washington in the future, said the official.
“[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we””this isn’t how you handle issues in region,” said the Arab official. “Egypt needs to be treated with respect.”
A great many of our allies—and not just in the Arab world—could make the same complaint.
Obama faces an extraordinarily difficult set of choices in Egypt, but he seems to be selecting some of the worst possibilities. How much damage can this administration do before it is finished?
[ADDENDUM: Walter Russell Mead provides some excellent historic perspective on the enormous difficulties of knowing which course to take when an ally undergoes a revolt.]
I remember the night of the 2008 election, I went to sleep feeling actual fear that our country was in big trouble. Now that I’ve seen Obama in action, I am quite a bit more relaxed about our long-term prospects. Here’s why:
People around the world have been trained to take the United States for granted. Now everyone gets the same lesson. Alliances mean nothing. U.S. policies shift every 4 or 8 years. It’s now out in the open.
Also, I’m one of the “nuke’em” types now. If anyone attacks the U.S., they had better be prepared for devastation. I say that even though I live in one of the target zones.
What a change from my kindly old peacenik days, which didn’t last very long, BTW.
What’s so difficult?
It’s clear American diplomacy should have focused on the long and mutually beneficial relationship between Egypt and the U.S.
There’s one reason and one reason only the latest events have occurred: isolation of Israel. The Arabs have been poor for decades, no, centuries. Their poverty isn’t the reason for this uprising and they certainly don’t have a hunger and thirst for democracy. Are you kidding me? They hate democracy. They are sharia-ists!
No. This is orchestrated. Planned. A perfect use of a perfect storm. Including the inflation and shortages. We have the exact template to examine which is being used and yet, of course, hook line and sinker goes the American big mouthed bass, that incredibly gullible wastoid, the American left.
But this time can anyone be blind to the non sequitur that is Obama’s response? Our ally, our interests . . . and Obama says, “Gotta go. Make room for the Islamists. Give the MB a place at the table.”
Obama is being merely pacifist but encouraging.
Let’s correct that last line:
Obama isn’t being merely pacifist but encouraging.
He’s just following his master Soros’ orders.
Curtis:
Serious question – Do you know the difference between “poor” and “starving”?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41414080#41414080
If people are indeed getting squeezed in Egypt due to commodities I don’t blame them. The Egyptian government may get 2 plus billion to spend on its nice military but I’m not sure the country hasn’t overall lost more money than it gets over the past few years due to our penchant to try to print our way out of a crisis.
I copied some items from Atlas Shrugged. Pam Geller met with Sandmonkey in 2007. I think it has some relevance here.
SANDMONKEY: “Any kind of democratic reform in the country [Egypt] for the past 3 years has been rolled back specifically because there is no more pressure coming from Washington anymore.”
ATLAS: Why? What happened to the pressure in Washington?
SANDMONKEY: You know what happened to the pressure in Washington. The Democrats won the Congress. There is no more pressure coming from Bush because he is not able to push people anymore to do those things. He is not able to push the Egyptian government anymore because the American public is suddenly not interested in reforming the Middle East because of what’s going on in the Iraq. So suddenly the Egyptian government is not afraid of the American pressure. They are doing whatever they want to do. They are beating up demonstrators, they are cracking down on activists, they are changing the constitution, and eroding civil liberties once and for all and they are using proxies to take down bloggers.
On the Democrats embracing Muslim Brotherhood:
Atlas: Where you shocked when Hoyer met with the Muslim Brotherhood?
SANDMONKEY: Let me tell you something. I was in Turkey a couple of weeks ago and I met a couple of Syrian activists. They one thing they told me that was really funny about the Pelosi visit. After Pelosi came to Syria two things happened. People on Syrian TV were saying, “We forced the Americans to knock on the Damascus gate!” Sort of like an admission that we messed things up in Iraq so much that America had to come and beg for their help.
But the day after Pelosi’s visits there were immediate arrests of Syrian activists. That was the fruit she yielded. “Oh the Americans came over and they said they have a different foreign policy and they’re more interested in placating Bashar’s ego.” And he went out and got [arrested] everyone he wanted because he knew he had an ally in Washington that wouldn’t pressure him as much.
ATLAS: We have to educate the American people. You think the American people know this?
SANDMONKEY: No, but do they even care at this point? I don’t think they are interested in the discussion any more. There are people that have made up their mind, they think we need to placate the dictators because America is wrong and everyone else is always right. That’s how they operate.
SANDMONKEY: What they are doing is completely irresponsible.
ATLAS: THe world is watching………
SANDMONKEY: Of course the world is watching and the world is gloating.
Everyone wanted Bush to lose the 2004 elections. If he had lost 2004 we would not have had our push for democracy in 2005. The moment Bush won again that’s when Mubarak said maybe we should have democracy because Bush didn’t go away. And had Bush gone away there wouldn’t be democracy right now …… like there wouldn’t be two years of freedom and fresh air that we were able to breathe and that’ we’ve had.
After 2006 [elections] the change went in the opposite agenda.
ATLAS: As an Egyptian who understands democracy, life, liberty the pursuit of happiness….and who admires America. Looking at America, I want to know what you see.
SANDMONKEY: I’m seeing a country in great danger. Simply speaking, I don’t think the people get what’s at stake anymore. I don’t think they see where they are heading.
While we will have to see how this all turns out, there really is a chance that Obama is sympathetic to the more radical Islamacists. Steve Sailor wrote a book about Obama (The “half blood prince”, a take off the Potter book) that indicates that most of O’s “real” ideology is revolutionist, islamacist, and based on identity politics. If Sailor is right, other than protecting his assets and family, I doubt Obama cares for much else.
While I sympathize with Arab bosses who lament our finicky behavior, they have no one to blame but themselves. Most people don’t even know these allies of ours are our allies – and it is at least arguable that the Saudis, especially, are not our allies when all is said and done.
I’d never pretend to know what to do in a situation like this, so I rely on experts whose judgments I trust – and I can’t help but notice that Victor Davis Hanson and Elliot Abrams both seem to say that a democratically elected despotism in Egypt would be better than what we have now. I think Hanson called this an “honest bad.”
If the situation is clarified by “honest bads” then we’ll have to face reality, and perhaps this is the only way that our braindead State department and politically correct establishment (left and right) can wake up and call a spade a spade. Calling things by their names is the first step to effective decision-making.
If we can see the Ikhwan for what they are – and say it – then this might bear out Hanson’s “honest bad” idea. Andy McCarthy’s “Grand Jihad” and Robert Spencer’s “Stealth Jihad” give chapter and verse on the enormous threat the Brothers pose. They are, if not the whole body, then the heart and soul of the Jihad.
There’s something to the idea, then, that the current status quo is unsustainable anyway, and the fact of life is that somehow, someway, we have to start facing the problem of Islam in all of its magnitude. The so-called moderate Muslim world isn’t up to it, clearly – they’re out of the game. Turkey proves it. Lebanon etches it into copper with acid. The so-called radical Islamists are not going to quit, on the other hand, so we have to get them before they get us.
I do not know how to do that, but it isn’t obvious that “losing” Egypt and perhaps other Arab countries would be an unmitigated disaster. Just like when we “lost” China, it could bring some much-needed perspicuity to our waging of the war in which we’re at present engaged.
I’m not saying Obama handled this well or correctly – again, I’m not competent to judge. But one way or another there will be a result, and even the result that seems least acceptable to all sides may, for the very reason that it is least acceptable, be by the cunning of history just what the doctor ordered.
Hey c’mon! Mubarak is an _old_ guy! Why, he’s 83…who knows…he might die tomorrow, and _then_ where would we be! These new guys are _young_ guys – no more of those stuffy _old_ ideas…we can work with them. We’ll sit down and talk to them … and talk…and talk…and we’ll _convince_ them to do the right thing (though I’m not sure what the right thing _is_). Besides muslims are really good people. It’s a really good religion – I know…I’ve lived among the muslims, and they’re good people. We could do worse than have islam throughout the whole world…
(Ok…O might – or might not – be a muslim. But he’s _definitely_ sympathetic towards them!)
But there’s good news. When O was first elected, I thought his eye was on the One World Government – with O as the overlord. We still might be headed towards a OWG, but I’m absolutely confident that O will be no where in the running for overlord.
BOV: Was just reading that and thought exactly the same thing. Neo isn’t as fiery as Gellar but I think they say the same thing just different ways. The Ben Eliezer is spot on too.
This reminds me of 1975 when the Democrars in congress voted to cut funding to our allies in SE Asia. Chris Dodd stood up in congress and declared that the people in Cambodia would be better off under Pol Pot. That sure worked out real well.
Obama’s actions are deliberate.
His motivation is to put pressure on Israel by forcing them to reflect upon how easily the Israel/Egypt treaty could evaporate, leading to a hostile Egypt and opening up a new front to the south. He’s subtly threatening Israel with further isolation and a new strategic threat.
His goal is to make Israel concede even more concessions, hoping that he can force Israel to accept The Arab Peace Initiative Israel rejects the initiative because of its ‘right of return’ proviso which is a non-starter for Israel.
If Obama could force Israel to accept the Initiative, he gains the political plum of ‘having brought peace to the middle East’ whch would be a great boost for his reelection chances in 2012.
It also guarantees the eventual dissolution of Israel, which in my opinion is not his main goal but something he would definitely welcome. It’s a win,win for him.
Brad, thanks for the link. I agree completely. Bill Fleckenstein was right on in that segment. Printing money has presented this perfect storm but the riders of this storm aren’t people we want to do business with.
1. Like kolnai, I don’t know what to do. However, Neo’s point wrt Egypt vis a vis Iran (cf. Honduras, Venezuela, etc) is very telling.
2. Even if Bush had good intentions (maybe), good intentions are not a grand strategy. Look at the Second Inaugural Address. I see little if any acknowledgment that American power is finite.
I don’t think this is terribly complicated.
President Obama has a much-discussed tendency to woo enemies and diss friends. (According to a formulation I like very much: “If you’re an enemy, we’re sorry. If you’re a friend, you’re sorry.”)
In my humble opinion, both sides of this policy stem from ignorant optimism, a misunderstanding of how the world works, and an unquenchable belief in Himself. He woos enemies because he thinks he can; because he think they’ll listen to his mellifluous tones; and because he actually believes that no problem cannot be solved by talking about it. He abandons friends, on the other hand, because he takes their friendships for granted — and because he relies on his Gift of the Gab to win them back again when he actually needs them.
(This makes sense, given President Obama’s history. People have nearly always needed him more than he needed them. He kicks people away, and they come crawling back to him, just about every time. There was no reason for him to believe that the Presidency would be any different.)
In light of this — what’s to explain? Iran is an enemy, so its leaders need to be wooed, therefore its dissidents are ignored. But Egypt is an ally, so its leader can be thrown under the bus, meaning that the dissidents are now the ones to be wooed.
(This topsy-turvy world picture doesn’t apply to domestic issues, by the way, in which the President does treat his perceived enemies as such. I suspect that this is simply his inexperience and myopia. He has experience in bare-knuckled domestic politics, and understands how to fight hard and dirty there. In the international arena, though, he still seems to believe that there are no problems that would not be solved if people would only listen to him.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Here’s what to do:
1. Stop printing money.
2. Take our medicine.
3. Stand by Mubarek and offer food until prices stabilize.
4. Obey the first commandment: “I am the Lord your God,” which means recognize and submit to our Creator.
Daniel in Brookline – very well said. If I’m not mistaken, this put you more in the “fool” camp than in the “knave” camp. I tended to the latter for a while, but now I’m leaning more toward what you said.
My only addition would be that it’s probably a mixture of fool and knave, and one or another wins out depending on the circumstances. Obama definitely is an ideologue, but he’s not terribly bright intellectually (contrary to the received wisdom), and I suspect he’s one of those guys we all knew in college who was always an instinctive socialist, but never really formulated anything coherent to go with his gut.
So at the same time he believes that talk can cure all ills and that the worldwide Left needs a boost. One belief is just idealistic horse-puckey, while the other demands Machiavellian cunning. I saw cunning – appalling and morally revolting – in his response to the Honduran crisis. But it could equally well be explained by his need to jawbone.
In other words, I now think that foolishness and knavishness in nearly all cases will lead to the same policies, and which is at work in a certain case depends on the variables. So I still believe his Honduras fiasco was motivated by leftist knavishness. But I think this Egypt fiasco is probably more foolishness (since it isn’t even clear to me what a socialist/leftist should want to happen in Egypt right now). And his Iran policy? Probably more foolishness than not. His policies directly bearing on Israel? Pure knavishness – I firmly believe he firmly believes that Israel barely, if at all, has a right to exist.
The bigger story is that, as James Burnham so lucidly explained in The Suicide of the West, the belief in the universal efficacy of rational talk and the cunning promotion of trans-national leftism are part and parcel of the same ideological package. Consequently, the Fool part and the Knave part tend to issue in the exact same decisions.
The answer to “Fool or knave?” might thus be: “Leftist.”
neo says, “It seem purposeful and strategic, and sends a message to our other allies in the region.”
If this is so, and I believe you may well be correct, the message is really no message at all; its a threat/warning directed at Israel.
Curtis says, “He’s just following his master Soros’ orders.”
ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL, ONE RING TO FIND THEM, ONE RING TO BRING THEM ALL, AND IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM.
I have been under pressure for a few days following a period of inactivity due to an eye ailment and got back when “Egypt exploded all over the Media” and dropped in now to see your viewpoint.
And it pleased my old heart to see your Post. My views are summarized in the following link, in which you will find a link to the one just before that.
http://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/day-of-irrelevance-for-america/
It’s a mess. Why did America decide to get involved?
3. Stand by Mubarek and offer food until prices stabilize.
3a. Get OPEC, particularly the Persian Gulf States to realize that rising oil prices also cause the poor of their region to suffer economically – wheat doesn’t ship itself to the shores of the Nile all by itself. Increase your production, reduce the cost of shipment, and you’ll ease the burden of Egypt.
Otherwise, they’ll be sowing the wind. And that’s one crop that rarely fails…
I am not a fan of Obama, but I blame Mubarak for this more than him. After all, if Mubarak had not tried to force his son on the Egyptian people when they obviously did not want him, if he had not been so brutal or so corrupt maybe this could have been avoided. This is a man who swore to do no more than two 6 year terms and then ended up declaring a state of emergency and making himself President for life.
Maybe Obama should have seen this coming, maybe the US should put more pressure on her allies in the region to try and deal with this kind of popular backlash before rather than after the fact. I don’t know that it would have been a lot different no matter who the president had been.
So perhaps our allies in the region should think about that rather than milking the west. After all, Mubarak never intended for there to be a peaceful transition of power and that is true for a lot of these thugs.
Brad,
I’m in agreement with your opinion on the damage the Federal Reserve is causing. As long as the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency Bernanke and the big spending politico’s in DC are hurting the less developed countries as much as they are hurting the American taxpayers. What they seem oblivious to is the fact that within the next 2 or 3 years the rest of the world will insist that the dollar no longer be the single reserve currency of global commerce. When that happens the American middle class will really feel squeezed.
“Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in the interview with NHK TV.” – Novosti
“After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel.” – Rashad al-Bayoumi
“Obama believes that the Muslim Brotherhood should participate in the political http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000620120&fid=1725
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#
Oops, Art beat me to it while I was typing:
Speaking nailing allies in the keister: WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
Barry is the inverse Marine: no worse friend, no better enemy.
Should be “speaking of” above.
So, the general feeling is that the people of Egypt have no say and no real input here. It is all about the US and Obama? I don;t know if the Muslim Brotherhood will be in power or not, but Mubarak is a dictator, he is not a victim. If it was so important to keep the Islamists out of there maybe we should have thought of this years ago.
See my gloomy remarks at the top of this thread. It’s much better if every country now knows that the U.S. can’t be trusted and acts accordingly.
All countries and peoples will know what awaits them instead of thinking that the U.S. will save them. Everyone will be thrown under the bus.
I’ve never studied the subject, but I’ll give my opinion anyway……….apparently the U.S. pulled the rug out from under the Kuomintang, leading to the Mao takeover in 1949. It would be interesting to find out more about this subject. So we can add 100 million dead Chinese to our list of betrayed allies.
I notice my liberal friends all think this Egyptian revolution is “long overdue” because Mubarak’s “a bad guy.” I don’t bother talking with these people anymore. They know nothing about Egypt, Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, the joys of female genital mutilation, the importance of the Suez canal, etc. As it turns out, Mubarak’s probably the most humane ruler that Egypt has ever had.
So when the Egyptians begin starving to death, are these kind-hearted friends going to see any connection between Mubarak’s overthrow, America’s perfidy, and dead Egyptians? Nope.
OK, rant over.
Would it have been so difficult for Obama to keep his mouth shut while events are in flux? Mubarak may not be a wonderful guy, but there is no point in undermining him.
Just plain stupid diplomacy.
Yes and no, depending on how you define the U.S. The problem with China is that the government’s information — and therefore views — were strongly shaped by several Communist agents, such as Owen Lattimore. These agents, through their incessant drumbeat of vituperation, convinced the government that the Kuomintang could not win, and that Mao & Co. were harmless agrarian reformers. They also hindered efforts to send gold to Chiang Kai-shek to fund the Kuomintang. IIRC, two of the other worthies involved in this were accused by the much-maligned Joe McCarthy of being Communist agents, whereupon they decamped to …Red China — you know, the way any loyal American would.
So if you consider Communist penetration to be part and parcel of the U.S. government, then yes, the U.S. did pull the rug out from under the Kuomintang. If not, then not.
I defer to Artfldgr, our resident scholar on this subject, for further commentary. He can supply you with references better than I can.
Promethea:
Half of the people of Egypt live on less than $2 a day while Mubarak’s wife goes on high profile shopping trips. Maybe a little economic liberalization together with a not so ostentatious life style might have made a difference. Some basic political reform might have helped as well. If we want the people of the region to choose secular over Islamist, it would help if the secular guy was not such a thug.
The point is we complain that these people are not more like us, that they are hopeless, extreme, that they hang onto dictators and mullahs etc and will end up starving, and yet in spite of these complaints we also expect them to put up with a corrupt thug who has been known to torture bloggers to death.
I am not a liberal, but when I say Don’t Tread on Me…I kind of figure that it is not a good idea to turn around and say but it is okay to tread on that Egyptian over there because his culture sucks.
Obama did not handle this well, he does not handle most things well…but Mubarak is 82 years old, he is corrupt, he was planning on installing his son in office and the people of Egypt have obviously had enough of him after 29 years. Is that really so surprising?
Obama seems to have a liking for Islam. Thus if you are Islam’s enemy, whether that be the dissidents in Iran or the dictatorship of Egypt, then you are out. And if you are an American ally at the same time, you are really out then.
If we want the people of the region to choose secular over Islamist
There’s no particular reason why they have to choose secular over Islam the religion.
So long as they get away from the Arab cultural artifacts, Wahabbi, and Shia extreme ideologies, they can build a working economy. It’s not like Islam of the past couldn’t build an economy, whether using slaves or not.
Their issue is that 1. They don’t have an economy worth anything and 2. They are going for jihad as a form of self-medication.
Obama is not a Muslim or a Christian. He is a dyed in the wool Obamist. Sometime in his childhood (which he is still in), he absorbed leftist utopian fantasies like a world without nuclear weapons, sharing the wealth, saving the environment, middle east peace, etc, and he decided he would be the one to bring about utopia. These great deeds are so important that things like betraying our firmest allies and dissing our country on foreign soil become minor tactical sacrifices. The only times he has made the right decisions were when he was faced with someone who outcredentialed him and had more experience. Otherwise, he wallows around in his fantasy world of clean energy and kumbaya.
I saw Merkel on TV tonight, and she seemed pretty firm about pushing for an orderly transition. She wasn’t specific, but I got the feeling that she wants someone in government to take charge. Egypt is a big trading partner for Germany, and Germany (at least the thinking people) does feel obliged to stand with Israel, so maybe Merkel can exert some pressure on the wealthier Egyptians to calm down the masses a bit. Much of the discontent seems to be a class struggle in which the educated more secular but less organized protesters don’t really represent the poor. I think the ultimate role of the MB will depend on whether the upper classes can convince them that they too are going to reform and do something about the corruption and poverty. At any rate, Merkel didn’t seem to be sitting back willing to let Obama handle everything. OMT, I just read somewhere that substantial gas deposits have been discovered in Germany that can be accessed with some of our newer drilling techniques. This can give Merkel a bit more maneuverabilty with respect to Russia and the Greens. Perhaps she can supply a bit of the backbone we currently lack.
One last thing: Did you see that a judge has ruled the administration to be in contempt of court for using backdoor methods to hinder oil drilling despite the supposed dropping of the ban? We need to hang onto that word contempt, because it describes perfectly Obama’s attitude toward the voters, the other branches of government, and our allies. Contempt and incompetence sum up Obama perfectly.
Ymarsakar:
I have no idea what these people are actually going for. No one does. No one even saw this coming.
I heard Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard on Special Report the other night and he said that too many people were trying to put a white hat {his words} on Mubarak. He also said that most of these people are not Islamists. He seemed to think that the Muslim Brotherhood is something we obviously need to be concerned about, but it was not accurate to say that all these protesters are out there calling for an Islamist state.
Maybe we should wait and see what is going on.
Terrye,
I’m not “supporting” Mubarak. I just think that before the U.S. publicly throws him under the bus, things should develop. Sort of like the Kuomintang.
Egypt is in serious trouble because of vast overpopulation. They need to develop free enterprise, etc. What are the chances that they’re going to develop the kind of democracy that we enjoy? I don’t support the U.S. government publicly undermining another government without having some idea of what will replace it.
Promethea:
I understand what you are saying, but my point is that Mubarak has made his own bed now he has to lie in it.
Did Obama handle this the way he should have? Probably not. But if he had come out in support of Mubarak against his own people after he was castigated for not supporting the Iranian protesters it would simply have underlined the fact that the US is not interested in democracy, we just want to keep our guys in power.
That is the problem here. What exactly did Mubarak do to avoid putting himself and the US in this position? Speaking of allies, how are we supposed to react when Mubarak allows his people to beat up American reporters? The truth is if the US had come out in strong support of Mubarak when his own people have had enough of them it would not help him or us. There is no good answer here.
So I think an argument could be made that Mubarak did a bang up job of undermining his own government
And what about the Saudi Royal family? Are they actually our friends and allies?
I think these people have been using the US for years. They have been promising to keep the big bad Islamists at bay if only we will give them aid or buy their oil.
Can they have the sort of democracy we do? I don’t know, probably not..but with someone like Mubarak making it impossible for political opposition parties to even exist they don’t have a chance of having any sort of representative government so long as he is in power.
This is not just Egypt. These young people have internet, they have satellite TV and they are catching onto the fact that the world is passing them by while they remain mired in the past.
Only time will tell what comes next.
Want to see brutal? Watch this.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/04/video-matthews-loses-his-tingle-over-egypt-declares-himself-ashamed/
The fact that it is Chris Matthews makes it worse.
“Obama fails to support the demonstrators in Iran; his rhetoric is tepid at best. But he throws his weight behind the ones in Egypt and speaks actively and early for Mubarak’s removal. I can think of no benign reason why this disparity would occur, “
Neo, neo, neo. The answer is obvious. Like all liberals, Obama is friendly toward our enemies and treats our friends with contempt. Witness his return of the Churchill statue to Great Britain and his sucking up to the Muslim world and Chinese. Sadly, it’s a familiar pattern. When a liberal is in the White House, it’s dangerous to be America’s friend.
RE:The Kuo Ming Tang and the loss of China. I doubt there was much any US government could have done to save Chiang Kai-shek. I recall that during Stillwell’s retreat from Burma with China’s Army Chiang issued orders to him to supply the troops with watermelons, not exactly Napoleonic insight with regard to an army fighting for its life but a reasonably portrayal of Chiang the military thinker. It was the classic case of a corrupt incompetent old guard fighting a revolutionary army of true believers.
With regard to Obama wanting the Moslem Brotherhood as part of a new government: I will say one thing for Obama, he is consistent. However I cannot call him predictable because stupidity on his level is beyond belief.
I hear McCain said Obama is moving towards the center. I noticed Senator McCain has one outstanding bad quality: he tells people there is nothing to worry about as the hot lava pours through the roof.
From Ike Jakson’s blog:
“This headline White House in talks with Egypt for Mubarak to quit immediately: report datelined 10:14 PM; February 3, 2011 includes this paragraph:
“The report came as the US Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution urging Mubarak to create a caretaker government.
The resolution, sponsored by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), called on Mubarak “to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government.”
If the words above are authentic it marked the time and the day America became irrelevant in World Affairs.”
Exactly, what a pathetically inept, disingenuously reactive clown show, especially Democrats (knaves), but including Republicans (fools); while the American and European masses (most of average I.Q.) both lethargically and casually acquiesce in their own hanging during this 21st century “cultural revolution”, now come to America. Defiance!
I just saw that the Munich Security Conference is taking place this weekend. Clinton, Ban Ki Moon, and Merkel will be there along with reps from other countries. Perhaps some tougher statements will be made there since they will have the appearance of more clout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Conference_on_Security_Policy
TV coverage begins a 10 EST. I’ll try to watch and report if I see anything more than the normal blablabla.
The problem is that the revolution in Egypt is more of a struggle for some kind of economic prosperity that the Egyptian people have been denied for such a long time rather than democracy as such. And I am afraid if this prosperity is not achieved they will find a number of reasons to accuse the Western countries of promising something which is impossible to obtain. That’s why I think the foreign intervention in the conflict would not be the best choice.
Did anybody see this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#
This stuff is arcane to me, but the Gormogons (who I got the link from) and the Telegraph appear to think it’s pretty perfidious. It does sound like par for the course with the Obama Administration’s attitude to Britain.
And the very sound of “Obama stabs Britain in the back to secure Russian arms treaty” rings jarringly in the ears.
Is anyone in charge of telling Americans when it’s time to panic? Or do we all just go gently into that good night?
I just read that people are offering the option that Mubarak might travel to Germany “for medical treatment.”
Merkel is just starting to speak at the conference.
There are some rules of thumb that I gained from my experience of bargaining at Oriental bazzar. This was in Central Asia, not Middle East, but I believe they apply to everything to the east of Suez.
1). Watch your wallet.
2). Whatever price is called, it is never even close to the sum the seller is ready to get for his merchandise.
3) Never assume a good faith from your trading partner. If he can deceive you and get with it, he will. Not a single word of him can be trusted.
4) Watch your back, too. Propensity of Arabs for betrayal exeeds everything you can imagine.
With these rules in mind any political negotiations between factions in Egypt should be judged. If Arabs could trust each other, they would never be as dirty poor as they are.
Must read at Sultan Knish:
“Interesting timing isn’t it. If you wanted to pull off something like this, getting the top commanders out of the country would be key to any plan. And it would give key officials a chance to press them to take a side.
I don’t want to go too far into the realm of speculation, but does anyone remember our good friend Samantha Power?”
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/02/friday-afternoon-roundup-pulling-back.html
Obama, being raised in Indonesia, must have known these rules perfectly well and use them. So there is no downside in applying them to any negotiations with Obama, too. Some bloggers suggested that Obama could be half-Arab himself. No chance to know this for sure, but he behaves like one. It is very crowded now under Obama’s bus. Arab or not, but backstabbing traitor he is.
I just saw that the Munich Security Conference is taking place this weekend.
Appropriate.
Riding on our shoulders. Spending our money. Preaching to us.
Obama and crew.
Paul Johnson called the 1960’s “America’s suicide attempt.”
What would he call now?
Sergey, I’ve had exactly the same experience. I think Arabs view this as a sport more than anything else, kind of like wrestling or debate, where the idea is to get the upper hand on your adversary. It’s a game, that’s all.
Haggling in a souk in Tunisia or Egypt (I’ve forgotten which) I offered a shopkeeper X, take it or leave it, because that’s all the local currency I had. My (now) wife helpfully reached into her purse, pulled out a handful of notes, and chirped, “Oh, I’ve got lots more.”
The shopkeeper laughed.
I actually fell asleep watching Merkel’s talk, but what I heard was OK. She was also talking about wider topics like NATO. One thing that I like about her is that she knows first hand how dictatorships work and the problems that can arise when one falls. She is also skeptical about the changes in Turkey and has opposed the US’s support for its entrance in the EU. She is also one of the few who was not gaga over Obama. I think growing up under communism really hones your BS detector. I am glad to see her involved in this whole mess. She doesn’t usually say much before the press, but she can be tough behind the scenes.
It seems to me that if we had really taken both Egypt and Mubarik seriously, we would have tried to protect him, not by worsening his situation but by warning him when he needed to make things better.
I recently read somewhere in an analysis of the Egyptian mess, that the time for a tyrant to make compromises is not when he is weak, but when he is strong. When his rule is not threatened, he can undertake reforms, pension off the more corrupt officials, and let some authority–and responsibility for failure–devolve to the local level. (The author may have been Max Boot, but then perhaps it was someone else.)
What is our CIA for if not to keep on eye on situations that need attention? Allies like Egypt need watching from within. Not (necessarily) from within the government, but just on the street. A secret “spy” network that includes taxi drivers, truck drivers, restaurant owners, and the like should be able to keep us informed of social pressures that are building. None of this need involve the military, police, or state secrets.
With this information and a light (NOT docrinaire) touch, we could offer a ruler like Mubarik the “word to the wise” about places where people are chafing under his rule.
If your moral scruples are itching, consider the alternatives: we don’t have the ally and the nation in question is harnessed by people who would use it to destroy Israel and impose Sharia on the world, or we have the ally and the country eventually sinks under the heavy saddle of the dictator.
Sergey wrote;
“If Arabs could trust each other, they would never be as dirty poor as they are.”
More than one commenter noted than the Arabs have produced what Edward Luttwak called “an amoral society.”