Back 45 years ago, when the War in Vietnam was raging, senator Aiken of Vermont famously said that the USA ought to "declare victory" and get out. Aiken, of course, was a vehement opponent of American involvement in Vietnam. He was a creature of the left wing of the Democrat party. Well, today, a modified version of Aiken's plan of action seems to have taken hold with that same group. This time, the target area is the Middle East. And this time, instead of declaring victory, the USA seems to be declaring defeat.
Just yesterday, the newspaper of record for the liberal Democrats, the New York Times, published a long article outlining the modified American foreign policy for the Middle East that has been adopted under the guidance of Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor famous for lying repeatedly to the American people about the terror attacks in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya. Here is how the Times describes the new policy for the area:
The United States, [will] focus on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria. Everything else [will] take a back seat.
Think about this summary for a moment.
First of all, this is not a misunderstanding by the Times. Indeed, the summary is the one that president Obama himself laid out at the UN last month.
Second, look at what is missing from the list. There is no mention of Egypt, the largest nation of the Middle East which provides leadership for many other countries and which controls the Suez Canal. Egypt right now is in the midst of recovering from the ousting of the Moslem Brotherhood from power. It could easily go with the military towards a pro-Western more tolerant country, or it could slip back into the control of the militant Islamists who persecuted the millions of Christians and other minorities in the country. Those Islamists would help move the entire Middle East towards a pro-jihadist policy supporting terror groups. But Obama is not going to engage there.
There is also no mention of Jordan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Jordan is a long time staunch American ally which needs our support to withstand the jihadist winds currently buffeting that kingdom. Iraq is the country where we lost thousands of soldiers and spent billions of dollars to bring that country to democracy. Iraq too is under attack by the forces of jihad. Obama is abandoning the Iraqis to their fate and throwing away years of American effort which were successful. Is it impossible for Obama to help the Iraqis just because the Iraq War was carried out by the Bush administration? And how about the Saudis? They are already moving away from the USA as an ally. The Saudis recognize when they are being dissed. Sure, the Saudis want an unbalanced relationship with America in which we do the heavy lifting, but at least they were our friends. Now, who knows?
Third, even the items which are mentioned are dangerous. Iran is going to be "negotiated". It is not going to be "prevented" from getting nuclear weapons. That is not a subtle difference, and it is not one that the Iranians themselves have missed. Most likely, the next few months will see either an Israeli attack on Iran which hopefully be successful, or a negotiated "deal" under which the Iranians agree not to produce nuclear weapons while moving full steam ahead to do just that. Then there is the "mitigating" of the Syrian conflict. Obama already agreed to leave Assad in place as the price for the Russians helping get out of the box he put himself into regarding chemical weapons. In that posture, the only way to mitigate the fighting is to watch Assad murder thousands more civilians (with only conventional weapons of course) as he moves to victory. Assad will be in place as the agent of Iran on the Mediterranean. I won't discuss the Arab-Israeli "peace" discussions. Obama has zero chance of achieving that goal.
All of this is tantamount to a declaration of defeat. In the real world, we are giving up regarding Iranian nuclear weapons and Syria. We are walking away from countries like Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia where America could use its influence for the good of those people and the protection of our national interests. This is a policy from which a future recovery will not be easy.
Just yesterday, the newspaper of record for the liberal Democrats, the New York Times, published a long article outlining the modified American foreign policy for the Middle East that has been adopted under the guidance of Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor famous for lying repeatedly to the American people about the terror attacks in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya. Here is how the Times describes the new policy for the area:
The United States, [will] focus on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria. Everything else [will] take a back seat.
Think about this summary for a moment.
First of all, this is not a misunderstanding by the Times. Indeed, the summary is the one that president Obama himself laid out at the UN last month.
Second, look at what is missing from the list. There is no mention of Egypt, the largest nation of the Middle East which provides leadership for many other countries and which controls the Suez Canal. Egypt right now is in the midst of recovering from the ousting of the Moslem Brotherhood from power. It could easily go with the military towards a pro-Western more tolerant country, or it could slip back into the control of the militant Islamists who persecuted the millions of Christians and other minorities in the country. Those Islamists would help move the entire Middle East towards a pro-jihadist policy supporting terror groups. But Obama is not going to engage there.
There is also no mention of Jordan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Jordan is a long time staunch American ally which needs our support to withstand the jihadist winds currently buffeting that kingdom. Iraq is the country where we lost thousands of soldiers and spent billions of dollars to bring that country to democracy. Iraq too is under attack by the forces of jihad. Obama is abandoning the Iraqis to their fate and throwing away years of American effort which were successful. Is it impossible for Obama to help the Iraqis just because the Iraq War was carried out by the Bush administration? And how about the Saudis? They are already moving away from the USA as an ally. The Saudis recognize when they are being dissed. Sure, the Saudis want an unbalanced relationship with America in which we do the heavy lifting, but at least they were our friends. Now, who knows?
Third, even the items which are mentioned are dangerous. Iran is going to be "negotiated". It is not going to be "prevented" from getting nuclear weapons. That is not a subtle difference, and it is not one that the Iranians themselves have missed. Most likely, the next few months will see either an Israeli attack on Iran which hopefully be successful, or a negotiated "deal" under which the Iranians agree not to produce nuclear weapons while moving full steam ahead to do just that. Then there is the "mitigating" of the Syrian conflict. Obama already agreed to leave Assad in place as the price for the Russians helping get out of the box he put himself into regarding chemical weapons. In that posture, the only way to mitigate the fighting is to watch Assad murder thousands more civilians (with only conventional weapons of course) as he moves to victory. Assad will be in place as the agent of Iran on the Mediterranean. I won't discuss the Arab-Israeli "peace" discussions. Obama has zero chance of achieving that goal.
All of this is tantamount to a declaration of defeat. In the real world, we are giving up regarding Iranian nuclear weapons and Syria. We are walking away from countries like Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia where America could use its influence for the good of those people and the protection of our national interests. This is a policy from which a future recovery will not be easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment