Why the US has no influence
Rich Lowry has a scathing summary of why John Kerry's mission to get a cease fire in Gaza failed. It can be summed up in a few words:
The United States has no influence.
After six years of resetting, leading from behind, ending wars,
nation building at home, and pivoting to Asia, the U.S. has reduced
itself to a husk of its former influence. When Kerry showed up in Cairo
to meet with the president of Egypt, he was wanded by the guards, as if
he had just wandered in from the airport security line.
Kerry
underlined his dubious relevance by his inability to secure a ceasefire,
and his dubious wisdom by making it his overarching goal. At this
point, after Israel has committed itself on the ground, the U.S. should
be seeking to give it the time it needs to do as much damage as possible
to Hamas’s military infrastructure, instead of effectively bailing out
the terror group.
Kerry held an ill-advised confab in Paris with
Qatar and Turkey, the patrons of Hamas. Even the Palestinian Authority
blasted this as the “friends of Hamas” meeting. With the Egyptians, the
Saudis, the Emiratis, the Jordanians, and the Palestinian Authority all
functionally on Israel’s side in the Gaza War, it should be in a
superior diplomatic position, but its superpower patron evidently didn’t
get the memo.
By the time Kerry returned home, he had been
showered with so much criticism by the Israelis that the U.S. government
was saying it could endanger our relationship. The question raised by
Obama-administration foreign policy again and again is, How can
self-styled “smart power” be so dumb and toothless?
For all
of Kerry’s failings, he is a relative giant among a foreign-policy team
composed largely of political hacks and post-American declinists. At
least Kerry retains some of the old Democratic-party belief in America’s
importance in the world. His condemnation of Syria’s use of chemical
weapons last year was a stirring moral indictment of the Assad regime
– although President Obama immediately undercut him when he abandoned
his own “red lines.”
So far, Kerry’s tenure as secretary of state
is making Hillary Clinton’s undistinguished stint look impressive by
comparison. But that’s mostly a matter of timing. It is his misfortune
to be present at the unraveling, as crisis after crisis unfolds, with
the administration lacking the interest or the tough-mindedness to
effectively respond.
It is impossible to find anywhere in the
world where our position or alliances are stronger than they were six
years ago. Incredibly enough, President Obama once called Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, the Islamist prime minister of Turkey, more than any foreign
leader other than British prime minister David Cameron. Now, Obama hasn’t even talked to Erdogan in five months, and his erstwhile buddy condemns Israel as a “terror state.”
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, degrading US military capabilities, fierce moral urgency, John Kerry, leading from behind, smart diplomacy, smart power
Smart Power: More of what Obama doesn't get about the Middle East
Barry Rubin has some
withering criticism of how President Obama has handled the Egyptian crisis until now and about the wrong lessons it is learning from the current situation.
The president of the United States leaped into an issue he didn’t understand, put forward a bad policy, showed he didn’t comprehend the most basic principles of statecraft and diplomacy, publicly celebrated as if he were making a campaign speech projected events in Egypt that didn’t happen, and then admitted that he had no idea what was going on.
Even some of his biggest left-wing fans had to admit this was a debacle. "The mystique of America's superpower status has been shattered," said Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation.
Well, who is shattering it? Not the demonstrators; not Mubarak. That catastrophe can only be traced to one man.
From the Middle East itself, the reviews are indeed shattering. The Saudis, just about the most cautious and conservative government there is in the world, publicly rebuked President Obama on his strategy. This is not primarily an issue concerning Israel. It’s an issue affecting anyone in the Middle East who opposes revolutionary Islamism and looks to the United States as a protector.
Yet what seems to be the administration's immediate response? Not to step back but to push harder on Egypt's government to get rid of Mubarak and turn over power to the opposition faster. "The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient," Obama said.
Meaningful for whom? Sufficient for whom? As for "immediate," that's an American conception. "Immediate" isn't always good. Obama's reaction to the events in Egypt was "immediate," that is based on no good information, study, or planning.
Obama has no idea what he is really saying: The Egyptian government better jump to appease the demonstrators or else! Is there no concept in the White House of regional stability, the battle against revolutionary Islamism, the dangers of anarchy, or the U.S. national interest? Apparently not.
That's the message Mubarak was trying to convey in his last great public act: I am an Arab warrior not a community organizer.
In other words, the U.S. government has drawn a lesson that is the exact opposite from the one they should be taking. Obama is in danger of becoming Captain Abab, with not just Mubarak but the entire Egyptian government and army cast in the role of the white whale. One almost feels that this is going to end with President Obama going to Tahrir Square to join the demonstrators.
But why hasn't anyone thought about comparing Obama's growing obssession with Mubarak to the battle between the two Bush presidents and Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq? It's worth thinking about. Saddam attacked two of his neighbors, supported terrorism, committed mass murder among his citizens, and tried to destroy U.S. interests. Mubarak has never attacked anyone, fights terrorism, and worked cooperatively with U.S. interests.
As Jon Alterman, a Middle East specialist who supports Obama put it: "Egyptians enjoyed greater freedom of speech than many other Arabs, and Egypt's economy was nurturing an increasingly robust private sector....[In the Freedom House survey] Egypt ranked as `partly free,' ahead of every Arab country except Kuwait and Lebanon. In the last decade, Egypt's stolid, dowdy, and state-owned press began giving way to satellite television and the Internet, and an array of independent publications."
Obviously, Mubarak's regime was a dictatorship. People were arrested and tortured and censored. No doubt. But there is a question of degree. The worst dictatorships nowadays are all anti-American and are trying to spread their influence, often through violence. And it's no accident that the "softer" dictatorships (like the shah and Mubarak) are more vulnerable from within than the all-out, flatten-anyone-who-opens-their-mouth authoritarian states like Saddam's Iraq or Ahmadinejad's Iran.
And yet the sole apparent goal of U.S. policy today is the overthrow of not just Mubarak but of the entire Egyptian regime. Or, in other words, for the first time the United States and al-Qaida are on the same side. This is true at a time when the same U.S. government is nicely engaging Syria which combines torture with support for terrorism and killing Americans in Iraq.
Read the whole thing. The end, in particular, is devastating.
Labels: Barack Obama, Egyptian regime change, Hosni Mubarak, smart power
Smart power: Saudi Arabia to make up any 'shortfalls' in US aid to Egypt
How's that
smart power going Barack?
US President Barack Obama spoke with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Wednesday to discuss events in Egypt. The Saudi King reportedly said that in the case that the United States withdraws its financial support of Cairo, that his kingdom would prop up Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime, The Times reported.
According to the report, the Saudi king told Obama not to push Mubarak too hard, so as not to humiliate him amid the ongoing protests demanding his ouster.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Egyptian regime change, Hosni Mubarak, Saudi King Abdullah, smart power
