Before I remark on the idiotic analysis of the day, I have to write a disclaimer. I usually don’t remark on what David Ignatius writes, but this latest article is too good — meaning too bad — to pass up. But first some background so you can see how things work behind the scenes in Washington, D.C.
I grew up within about two blocks of Mr. Ignatius. One of my best friends went to school with him. After my friend defeated Ignatius for the chairmanship of the school’s most prestigious club by a landslide, Mr. Ignatius said to him, “I could have beaten you if I’d wanted to!”
In 1982 or perhaps in 1983, I spoke at a conference about media reporting on the Lebanon war. I had witnessed, for the first time in person, the most amazing distortions of truth by the journalists there.
One notorious example I remember was a reporter standing in front of a Lebanese house claiming it had been callously destroyed by the Israeli forces. This statement was somewhat belied by the fact that a rather large and healthy tree was growing in the middle of the derelict building, extending its branches well above the level of the walls.
Knowing that Mr. Ignatius, who had reported on the war, was on the panel, I stated several times something to the effect that, “This doesn’t apply to David Ignatius, who did a great job.”
To my surprise, after the event he came up to me and angrily said, “You [word unsuitable for family publications] me and I’m going to get you.”
Some time later, he reviewed one of my books in a tiny publication that few if any read. It was the nastiest review I’ve ever received. But, as I say, nobody saw it and I only noticed because the publisher sent it to me.
About four or five years later I was attending some conference sitting at the dinner table with him and Ignatius said something to the effect that I had served my sentence, been punished enough, and so his wrath had been sated.
There. So now you can judge whether I am biased against him.
Ignatius, who has all along been a defender of Obama administration policy toward Syria, wrote in the Washington Post:
U.S. officials see signs that Syria’s embattled president, Bashar al-Assad, has concluded that to survive the massive protests against his regime, which continued today across the country, he will have to distance himself somewhat from Iran.
Whatever happens in the anti-Assad protests, Iran is likely to lose some of its easy access to Syria, its key Arab ally. If Assad survives, he will have to establish some distance from Iran to appease Sunni protesters, U.S. officials believe. And it he’s toppled, Syria is likely to be ruled by a Sunni-dominated regime that will be more hostile to Iran.
Now this is a sparkling example of the kind of idiocy that passes for analyzing the Middle East on the part of “U.S. officials” and big-name analysts in the media. Remember that Assad has adopted a strategy of identifying his opponents with America, Israel, and al-Qaeda. He is toughing it out. Why would be want to distance himself from an ally which:
– Provides Muslim religious credentials to his regime ruled mostly by Alawites who are not Muslims. (When I once told an emigre Syrian Muslim journalist that a lot of people disagreed with me about Alawites not being Muslims, she laughed and said that everyone knew they weren’t.)
– Gives it strategic cover against the West and Israel. When Iran has nuclear weapons that umbrella of protection would be even more valuable.
– Pays a lot of its bills through subsidies.
– Pays for its weapons and for supporting joint Iran-Syria clients like Hamas and Hizballah.
The possibility of any decision by Assad to move away from Iran? Zero.
Mubarak was the devil we know, we have no idea what it going to happen in Egypt or Syria. I am sorry, I gave myself a vacation from the news, I hope Assad goes does down but only if it emerges as pro-American country. I don’t see how we can have another country that hates the US, Israel and believes in Shariah law is good for the US.
I did hear that Hosni may face the death penalty for something but I had the television on and was not paying attention. I was under the impression he was dying of prostate cancer.
Come on, now, you can’t really be grumping about the Polish guy running for the prime minister’s office in Canada. Running in third, behind a man caught by the police with his pants down in a Chinese whorehouse. Why would you care about Canada? Its most famous philosopher is an African war criminal. ‘Sheesh,’ I say.
The rest of your work, I like it, mister.
It is a great thing to see the Polish guy, Ignatius, leader of the Canadian Liberal Party going down to defeat in the evening’s federal election, though he will now have more time to harass our gracious host.
On the other hand, the leader of the opposition here in Canada, the sleazy Jack Layton, socialist party leader, will have less hands-on time, which should have resulted in him going to gaol 16 years ago when he was caught with a Chinese prostitute, her hands-on apparently doing the work he was too good for, he being an intellectual, you know, far smarter than the rest of us.
Aside from the Canadian people, now having a majority government of Conservative prime minister Harper, the real winner is likely the Africa war criminal/Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor. Write, shoot, think, send people to prison, write some more. Ha. Who ever said that Canada is boring?
I’ll bet you a thousand internet bucks that Islamists take over Syria before Egypt.
Hey, your buddy writes this about National Security Advisor Tom Donilon:
“Donilon cites four guidelines that have shaped the administration’s response ever since: First, the Arab revolt is a “historic” event, comparable to the fall of the Ottoman Empire or the post-1945 decolonization of the Middle East; second, “no country is immune” from change; third, the revolution has “deep roots” in poor governance, demographics and new communications technology; and fourth, “these are indigenous events” that can’t be dictated by America, Iran or any other outside power.”
That all sounds good to me except for the “immune” thing which is semantic static.
What I would add is that besides organizationally, that “new communications technology” has enabled hordes throughout the middle east to make the same journey to the West as did Sayd Qutb, except they’re digging on those “thirsty lips” if you know what I’m saying.
No reports of anyone in the middle east who looks like Hector Heathcote yet so the jury’s still out on whether Washington will cross the Delaware or the Rubicon.
However, I’m very much afraid that the story of Islam and Democracy in the middle east is the story of Lovecraft’s man “In the Vault” who couldn’t “shake clear of the unknown grasp which held his feet in relentless captivity”.
A solid analysis, with emphasis on ‘analysis’.Again,and most importantly, why is Obama and his minions propping up Assad, Iran’s main ally?To what end?
Enough said.
It really is hard to see what could be WORSE than Assad. Think about it. He already despises Israel, he is destabilizing (if not invading) Lebanon, he gives unlimited support to Hezbollah and Hamas, he is a direct ally of Iran, he supports all forms of terrorism, he allowed jihadists to use Syria as a safe haven to kill American troops in Iraq, and he is committed to wiping Israel off the map. With “friends” like this, who really needs enemies? How could anything, anything, be worse than this pig?
We should get behind supporting the people in overthrowing Assad. Even if he is replaced by a general, it may not change things that much, but at least they will know they “owe” us one, meaning they will know they couldn’t have taken over without at least some help from us. May not be much, but it sure is a lot better than what we have now. It would also send a message to Iran that none of their psychotic friends are safe from us. That alone is worth the price of helping the Syrian people.
Obamaants Assad “in place” for one reason only. He sees him as a more effective “counterbalanc to Israel” than any of his likely replacements. (For “counterbalance to” read “weapon against”.)
All of Obama’s MidEast policies are based on the idea that all our problems with the Arab world stem from our friendship with Israel. No Israel= No Problem. His speech in Cairo was a clear message to the “Arab street”- “I am your friend, not the Jews’ friend. The American people do not agree with me, but they are just stupid peasants and we, the enlightened ones, can safely ignore them. Because I’m in charge.”
Matters are not helped by SecState Hillary, who has dreamed of a MidEast sans Israel since she was a college radical. Again, No Israel= No Problem. The fact that what Wretchard calls the “fixity of malice” toward the West exists in the Islamic zeitgeist, and is just as intense as the Islamic animus toward Jews in general and Israel in particular, is irrelevant to her, because she simply does not believe it. And as with her vozhd, The One, if it does not exist in her mental universe, it cannot exist, period.
we are led by dogmatic, delusional people with a “fixity of malice” toward both our friends, and our civilization, both of which they believe they could run the world much more “efficiently” without. And have more fun doing it, too.
Don’t expect rationality to break out in the corridors of power anytime soon. If it stuck its head up, they would probably have it shot.
clear ether
eon
eon, EXACTLY!Bullseye!
“Owe” is that sense could mean more fallen skyscrapers.
I say stay out, Libya too. No one is going to blow up stuff cuz we ignored their revolution.
Stored WMDs need to be kept hush hush…
Obama helped take Mubarak down because endgame was an Israel surrounded by hostiles. Taking down Assad would only endanger that achievement. Aside from his narcissism there is no understanding Obama other than as a POTUS who seethes with hostility to Israel and America.
Excellent analyses. Bravo.
The question is not whether radical islamists take over egypt or syria or not, it is when…
The good news about Islamists-nazis taking over? It wills stop the charade that has been going on in the arab world for 40 years. Then learned to put on a tie and act and speak measured. When they go “native”? There will be no more dishonesty and their cover will be blown. The west will find it hard to fund these islamicnazis nations.
Once all pretense of islamic “compromise” is blown, Ie hamas and fatah, Israel will have a much freer hand in destroying them.
Obama is the icing on the “gentleman rapist” he says please and thank you, he is funny and engaging. But his core beliefs are racist and disgusting. So many people are fooled by Obama since he is such a nice “guy”. But let me ask a specific question. How many people do you have as CLOSE friends (ayers) that have actually built bombs and tried to blow up police stations, schools or rob banks?
Most people prefer the polite nazi to the rude annoying truth teller.
I have learned thru painful experience that those that can be lulled into a trance by those that speak out of both sides of their mouths have no ability to see the truth. (normality bias).
Whether it’s a Bernie Madoff, an Obama, Housing Crisis, Islamic Jihadism (CAIR) if you put a nice suit on it and present it as a rose (even if it’s made from actual shit) MANY will be blinded…
So in a way, maybe the best thing to happen to the middle east and islam is to rip the mask of civility off..
Once that is done?
Destroy them….
What I am waiting for is how Obama and Clinton come to terms with Hamas/PLO Palestinian Authority.
This will be a tougher sell than continued American support for Basher Assad regime in Syria, and probably even more convoluted.
But Barack Obama is the most intelligent and articulate President America has ever had, he has even said so, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets lots of advice from PhD.’s, so I am sure they will find a way to continue to trivialize Israeli security concerns and continue to provide American financial and diplomatic support for the Hamas/PLO unity government.
the response of many of my ignorant, but well meaning friends?
the ones who don’t really care about any of this ‘stupid talk radio’ crap?
‘the Israelis had it coming’
‘oh, I’ve seen what they do to Palestinians’
I’m expecting Yom Kippur II to come in September.
Not so much the destruction of Israel, rather,
the ‘creation’ of a Palestinian ‘state’.
A secure base for further raids, re Maronite Catholic Lebanon.
What if?– the Man who takes Jerusalem will have a billion loyal soldiers;
Caliph of the World
Obama has his good and bad tyrants, A’jad and Assad he cottons to, Q’Daffy and Mubarack, not so much.
Obama sticks to his guns (it’s a personality trait) and will stand on his head to make his version “correct”, on this or any other topic.
Hillary (“the parrot”) Clinton has recently pronounced Assad a “reformer”, while élitists at Vanity Fair and on the DC social circuit fawn over the elegance of the man and his wife.
As for alleged Hamas/Fatah rapprochement, I’ve always seen Abbas as a weak sycophant and unworthy leader. Recently, linked here at PJM, were pictures of him mixing it up socially with the crowd in Gaza.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Jerusalem is not a “holy city” in Islam and no one in the “Arab world” particularly likes the Palestinians.
But everyone in the Arab world likes to use that beleaguered people to stick it to Israel.
I have a feeling that Obama’s foreign policy is created thusly:
1) aides and advisors scribble phrases on scraps of paper
2) the scraps of paper go in a hat
3) 0bama reaches in a grabs one
BDJ, It sounds like you are attributing too high a sophistication to Obama’s thinking. I always thought they depended on a Magic 8 Ball.
This surprises you about obama. Obama is anti American, he is doing everything he can do to destroy America!
Unless there is sufficient evidence that the rebels are Jeffersonian democrats, it might be prudent (channeling elder Bush) to stand back and let things unfold. So far, it seems very likely that the said groups will turn against America once they’re in power; not to mention, the magnitude of atrocities, including executions without trials, could be much higher under the rebels.