A damning indictment of Obama's 'strategic thinking'
Newsweek's Niall Ferguson has a
damning indictment of President Obama's 'strategic thinking' in the Middle East (although he attributes a major portion of the blame to former National Security Adviser James Jones).
The contrast between the foreign policy of the Nixon-Ford years and that of President Jimmy Carter is a stark reminder of how easily foreign policy can founder when there is a failure of strategic thinking. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which took the Carter administration wholly by surprise, was a catastrophe far greater than the loss of South Vietnam.
Remind you of anything? “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times last week. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”
I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration’s strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things—ranking priorities and gaming scenarios—that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.
These were his words back in June 2009:
America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
Those lines will come back to haunt Obama if, as cannot be ruled out, the ultimate beneficiary of his bungling in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country—and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Sharia. Would such an outcome advance “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” in Egypt? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice. Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so. A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.
Note one objective that Ferguson doesn't list: Settling the Israeli-'Palestinian' dispute. It's a curious omission, because, as I have written dozens of times over the last three years, the establishment of a 'Palestinian state' is the one foreign policy goal that genuinely seems to interest Obama.
Imagine if over the last two years, even a fraction of the effort that has been put into a 'Palestinian state' had been put into edging Egypt toward democracy or pushing out Iran's fascist government (which beat demonstrators on Monday). The world would be a different place. Instead, the world seems to be quickly moving backward toward its Middle Ages domination by Islam.
What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Arab democracy, Barack Obama, Egyptian regime change, hope and change, Hosni Mubarak, James Jones, Palestinian state
James Jones backs removing terror designation from MEK
The Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) or People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) is
Iran's largest opposition group. It was designated a terror organization in the 1970's due to its opposition to the Shah, who was a US ally.
This is from last January.
Today an important step will be taken in determining whether an injustice created nearly two decades ago by our executive branch will be corrected by our judicial branch. At issue is a challenge, before the U.S. Court of Appeals, which will hear oral arguments on the issue, to the Secretary of State’s refusal to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of the main Iranian opposition group, known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) or People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI). The outcome of the Court’s decision can affect a foreign policy with Iran, which, under the two U.S. Presidents in office since the FTO listing, has remained toothless. Making the right decision to revoke MEK’s FTO status now would tell Iran the era of appeasement is over.
Founded in 1965 by progressive Muslim intellectuals, MEK’s early objectives ran contrary to those of the U.S. While U.S. interests focused on keeping an ally—the Shah—in power, MEK’s focus was on toppling him. As such, in the early 1970s, MEK’s top leadership were killed or arrested under a massive nationwide crackdown by the Shah’s secret police. What original leadership survived was released from prison weeks prior to the Shah’s fall. MEK’s popular network took part in the 1979 movement to turn him out and usher the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in. But it did not take long to realize the mullahs’ extremism undermined the democratic, post-Shah Iran MEK had envisioned. For example, MEK’s view Muslim women were equal was rejected by Khomeini, who removed women from positions of authority, claiming they lacked the brain capacity of their male counterparts.
Soon the differences between Khomeini and MEK leadership turned violent. In 1981, MEK-led peaceful demonstrations against Khomeini’s brutality resulted in the head mullah’s orders to shoot protesters in the streets. Most of MEK’s senior cadres were executed. Its core leadership relocated to Paris, where it re-asserted the group’s influence.
Fast forward
another year.
This is a bit surprising: The team included former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson and former U.S. National Security Advisor director James Jones. They endorsed what one can only call a spectrum of views, although all backed MEK’s legitimacy, and the notion of removing it from the list of terrorist organizations.
The MEK is, depending on whom you ask, a terrorist cult or legitimate resistance. Jones's public support for removing it from the State Department's list of terrorist groups is, at least, notable.
If he were still in the White House, I would say his support of the MEK signifies the end of the Obama administration's efforts to 'engage' Iran. But since Jones is no longer in the White House, I guess we can't go that far.
Labels: Bill Richardson, James Jones, John Bolton, MEK, Politics, World Politics
Just do it?
Now that James Jones is no longer President Arrogant's National Security Adviser, we're finding out what a
piece of work Jones really is.
Sometimes you have to wait until high-ranking officials leave office to find out how truly clueless they are. Such is the case with former National Security Advisor James Jones. Israel-Palestinian peace is easy to obtain, he explained in a lecture. Why? Because the Palestinians are willing to accept Israel gradually giving them all of the West Bank over the next ten years.
"I just think their cause would be dramatically enhanced by being a state to start with," said Jones. Yes, having a state would dramatically enhance their cause. But that equally was true in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The problem is the cause they want enhanced is wiping out Israel altogether.
Of course, it is always easy to persuade the other side to make peace when they are getting everything and giving up nothing. Indeed, Jones could also make many other such peace agreements:
Read the whole thing. It's amazing how clueless this administration is about this region. Unless you believe, like I do, that their hostility is intentional.
Labels: Barack Obama, Barry Rubin, James Jones, Just do it
Newsweek's Niall Ferguson has a damning indictment of President Obama's 'strategic thinking' in the Middle East (although he attributes a major portion of the blame to former National Security Adviser James Jones). 
