In his controversial talk at the State Department, President Obama was expected to discuss the “Arab Spring”. However, after much White House discussion, a decision was made to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an unwelcome surprise for Prime Minster Netanyahu, immediately before his visit to the White House. The assertions that the “1967 borders” should be the basis for “peace”, that borders would be discussed before other issues, the omission of any demands on the Palestinians, including recognition of a Jewish state, incitement to violence, and the influx of millions of Palestinians to the Jewish state, are now recognized as having making matters worse.
The last minute inclusion of material regarding Israel meant that most of the speech was ignored.. But there is much in the rest of President Obama’s State Department speech that also needs to be examined, since our President once again shows himself to be naive and poorly informed on issues related to the “Arab Spring”. Some observations follow.
1. With respect to Islamic terror, President Obama is obsessed with pinning the entire responsibility on Al Qaeda, while ignoring the much larger strategic threat posed by revolutionary Islamism This war is not against Al Qaeda; it is against militant Islam, of which Al Qaeda is one part. A basic tenet of this administration is that al-Qaida is the enemy because they were the ones who attacked America in 2001. In his speech after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, he couldn’t say the words Al Qaida too many times.
The emphasis on Al Qaeda served an important function for Obama in the election campaign of 2008, when Obama in effect distinguished between Al Qaida and all other types of revolutionary Islam.. At that time, for purposes of campaigning and demonizing the opposition, he could oppose the invasion of Iraq, and he could support engagement with Iran and other elements of radical Islam as long as he could pretend that only Al Qaeda was the enemy. This also allowed him to avoid the trap of being labeled a pro-appeasement dupe.
Yet this is a war against radical Islam. The clear strategic threat is posed by revolutionary Islamism, which includes Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkish groups, and others, all serious threats to the US and our allies. Some are terrorist groups, others are nations that sponsor terrorist groups. To narrow the focus to Al Qaeda is to encourage those who claim the war on terror is simply fear mongering. It is most certainly not. There are significant numbers of persons who wish to kill those of us who are not Muslim
Let us be clear. As Barry Rubin has pointed out, while Al Qaida may be fading, Iran is marching toward nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them. Hezbollah all but controls Lebanon, Hamas controls Gaza and will likely end up controlling the West Bank, the Muslim Brotherhood will probably control Egypt, and Turkey is moving toward Iran and away from he West.
2. In his speech, Obama stated his support for democracy. Using impressive language, he supported "free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders—whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran." President Obama has high hopes for the “Arab spring.” This is to say the least confusing when one examines how the US under the current administration has dealt with the important issues of the area.
AS Matthew Brodsky indicates, in Tehran Obama supported the regime and not the people after fraudulent elections and the murder of Iranian protesters two years ago. The beginning of the so-called Arab spring occurred two years ago in the streets of Tehran. We remember the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman dying in the streets of Teheran, her death captured on video by bystanders. Where was the exercise of those rights then?. And what about the opposition within Iran? They know that they were neglected by Obama when it mattered, and so they don’t trust anything that he says.
To automatically welcome change in the Arab world is not a prudent path. The cliché is "be careful what you wish for". We got rid of the Shah and got the Ayatollahs. We got rid of Mubarak, a pro-American autocrat, and now we will get an anti-American autocrat. I harbor no illusions about Muammar Qadaffi, but after Qadaffi's 42 years in power, what comes next? It matters.
3. Iran is one of the most important threats in the region, but it filled a minor role in the speech. Today Iran is the chief sponsor of terror, and is working feverishly on an illicit nuclear program. Not only Israel, but most Arab nations, are concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran’s rulers now know that Obama can be ignored without consequence. Nothing in his speech will change that perception.
4. In Damascus, the citizen opposition currently being massacred on the streets are calling for the same universal rights as Obama. And yet our president has failed to call for regime change in Syria, The Assad regime is Iran's partner and as pointed out by Brodsky, is "a perfect example of the failure of the White House's engagement strategy".
In his speech, Obama said, "President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition or get out of the way." Doesn’t our President understand that Assad has made his choice? Bashar Assad now knows that Obama’s words mean nothing. Plus what must Assad’s opponents in the street think when Obama says to them "Our message is simple: If you take risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States." Full support? To what is he referring? Over 1000 Syrian citizens have been murdered in the streets. In what way has the US given them “full support”?
No one wants war. However, it is critical to distinguish between the entities that start wars and those that act to defend themselves from the consequences of the hostile actions of others. It is not the US that is instigating war. To try to avoid war by appeasing aggressors simply delays the inevitable, and increases the human cost.
Poland did not initiate the war with Germany in 1939. The US was not the party to start a war with Japan in 1941. Czechoslovakia was a passive victim of French and British perfidy, forced to surrender to Germany in 1938. With respect to radical Islam, this is 1938 all over again. To claim, as some have, that the “war on terror” was simply a Bush plan to achieve political aims, or a war for oil, is absurd. Michael Moore, Code Pink, and the other paranoid conspiracy thinkers, blame America. They are wrong.
Obama has done a terrible job in his prosecution of US foreign policy. He has undermined our allies. He has, “engaged with” and befriended our enemies. He has flattered and bowed to autocratic dictators, while humiliating our friends.
This will not cost him the election in 2012; that will be decided on the issues of unemployment, and which party scares voters more on the future of Medicare.
But the legacy of Barack Obama, and whether he will be judged by the chroniclers of history to be wise or foolish, will be determined by how he handles foreign policy issues; it is these that currently threaten the survival of the free world. Right now, the major issue facing America is Islamic jihad, and the threats it poses to America and to our allies.
I predict that Obama will exceed the record of Jimmy Carter as a failed President. He has proven himself to be dangerously narcissistic, uninformed, and unwise. He is a victim of hubris, of a narrow ideology that has been thoroughly discredited, and of an unwillingness or inability to ask what is in the best interests of our great nation. We need better.
Please bookmark!
No comments:
Post a Comment