Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Obama's Dilemma

President Obama has been taking an understandably cautious approach to the Egyptian crisis-so cautious that his bumbling press spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has no idea what to tell inquirying reporters at the daily briefings. The official position has seemed to be that the US would let The Egyption People decide what happens to their country, an admirable position indeed. Yet, it seems that the US position is inching toward easing Mubarak out the door a'la the Shah.

Obama has now come out and stated that the Muslim Brotherhood should play a role as long as they renounce violence and recognize democratic principles. Of course, they have long been telling Western audiences those very things as part of their propaganda campaign. What they want, however, is an Islamic caliphate. More tellingly is the statement from a Brotherhood leader yesterday:

"Get ready for war with Israel."

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

Obama has also now told Mubarak that the "transition must begin now." I think in diplomatese, it means "get out!". That would represent a departure from letting The Egyptian People decide unless Obama has come to the conclusion that they have, indeed, decided that Mubarak must go-a pretty safe bet. Thus, it appears that Obama considers the risk of telling other friends in the region that when the going gets tough, the US won't stand by their allies-to be the lesser danger. Indeed, the US seems to be in a no-win situation.

Unless, of course, you believe that democracy is on the march in Egypt. Isn't that what all the protesters are saying to the Western reporters on the street? That would be the desired outcome for every country in the Middle East since free societies tend not to become radicalized and also tend not to war against each other.

Meanwhile, in the real world...........

Here is how I see it playing out assuming Mubarak chooses not to order the military to wipe out the protesters. First a disclaimer. I am no Middle East expert. I have been to Egypt a grand total of once, and that means nothing. What I am going to say means as much as idle chatter in a pub.

Mubarak will leave the country and take his newly-installed vice president with him. Mohammed El Baradei, an international bureaucrat, will assume office as a caretaker president. We may even see an election later this year as scheduled. One way or another, when all the dust is settled, the Muslim Brotherhood will be running things in Egypt after sweeping El Baradei or whoever else out of the way. Then we will have witnessed the next Iranian-style revolution.  There will be no democracy. There will be no friendship with America. There will be no more peace treaty with Israel. On the contrary, there will be another hostile state on Israel's border itching to destroy the Jewish state. There will be an alliance with Iran. Will that be the 'will" of The Egyptian People?

And watch the dominoes, to coin a phrase, follow suit in the Middle East.

Yet, NBC Middle East reporter Richard Engel, who has years of experience in the region and speaks Arabic, is dismissing any importance as to the Brotherhood. He says they are not much of a factor. I can't buy it. Go to their website Ikhran Web and see how they are following events. They are making demands.

"Mubarak must leave. Until then, no dialogue with the military, VP or government.

The Chief Justice of the Constutional Court must be appointed interim president."

If these things all come to pass, what should the US, the West and Israel do?

Maybe we will wake up to the fact that there is very little we can do to to please that part of the world. No matter how Egypt plays out, the US will be blamed no matter what we do or don't do. After all, we are the reason that those nations have been failed states and societies for all these milennia before the US or the modern state of Israel came into being.  Israel, for one, is reaching the point where they can wait no longer to take out those Iranian nuclear facilities with or without our help.

We also need to develop our own oil supplies instead of depending on Saudi oil. How much longer will it be before that nation is shouting, "Death to America"?

We also need to start a new international organization made up of free and democratic countries and let the rest belong to that corrupt, useless and decrepit outfit called the UN. They can all stew together without our foreign aid. It goes without saying that all aid to Egypt should stop if the Brotherhood takes power. (It won't. We'll try to buy their favor.) They will already come into possession of all the weapons we have given Egypt. That's bad enough.

Ditto for that other "proud nation" called Pakistan.

I have been saying for some time that our children will inherit World War III. The way things are going, I may live to see it as well.

Of course, we could simply make a peace treaty.



6 comments:

  1. What do you want Gary?

    Do you want the President of the United States to get involved, or to keep hands off? If he's going to get involved, do you want the U.S. to be seen propping up another tired dictatorship visibly rejected by its own people? Or to ease the dictator out the door?

    Someone already put this in perspective for Israel better than I have:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02friedman.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

    I don't offer that link in hopes that you will bow to the perceived wisdom of Thomas Friedman. You despise the man, you've made that very clear. But in my seldom humble opinion, he's offered the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    Israel ignores this advice at its peril. If Israel fails to grasp the moment as Friedman recommends, the U.S. should wash its hands of the Israeli government, including cancelling all foreign aid, until it comes to its senses.

    And Egypt? The Egyptian people ARE going to decide, that's obvious. Exactly which Egyptian people get their hands on which levers of power is something we can only influence indirectly, first and foremost by NOT aligning ourselves with a government of which we can only say, in the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher, "It is time for you to go!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obama is just trying to figure out which horse to bet on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Obama is just trying to figure out which horse to bet on."

    And? That is exactly how any other president (past or hypothetical) would handle it.

    I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that approach, but you're criticizing Obama as if any other president would handle this situation any differently. I'm 99% certain that they wouldn't.

    Just another example of your blind partisan hackery.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous,

    That wasn't necessarily meant to be critical. I think I have been rather fair to Obama on this. It's pretty much a no-win situation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Siarlys,

    I actually listen to what Friedman has to say on the ME, but it won't be him that will be slaughtered if Israel is ever overrun.

    As for you, Egypt erupts and you imply the US should walk away from Israel if they don't do this and that. Let's see what happens in Egypt, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The point is that if Israel doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, they WILL find themselves being slaughtered. They've always been outnumbered. Right now they are kind of sleep walking. Huh? Palestinians? Oh, those people on the other side of the fence. Yeah, well, I'm too relaxed right now to worry about them. Later for them." It can't last forever.

    I can't tell if you're being fair to Obama. You seem to think there is something in this situation to needle him about, but you won't (because you an't, none of us could) offer a clear alternative. Yeah, he's looking for which horse to bet on. Its the only thing the USA can do right now. Hope he does as well as he used to do in poker games with his fellow Illinois legislators.

    ReplyDelete