The Powerlessness Excuse: Debunking the Claim that Obama Could Not Have Affected the “Arab Spring” and Islamist Takeovers
One argument we increasingly will be hearing is that President Barack Obama couldn’t have done anything to change events in the Middle East. This is ironic, of course, because when things were going well he wanted to take credit as the inspiration for the “Arab Spring.”
Let’s remember that the president began with three acts that foreshadowed what was to come. He gave a speech in Cairo in which Muslim Brotherhood leaders were seated in front, thus making it impossible for Egyptian government officials to attend. Obama thus not only declared himself on the side of the opposition, but of the Islamist opposition.
Important, but never noticed, is something critical Obama did. In discussing the Middle East and the Arabic-speaking world, he exalted Islamic identity. Remember that for six decades, national — i.e., Arab — identity had dominated. True, it was used by dictatorships and for demagogic, anti-American purposes. Now, however, here was an American president declaring that religious identity should dominate. This was an action both against the existing regimes and the moderate opposition forces.
After the demonstrations in Egypt began in January 2011, the U.S. State Department — with the approval of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — advocated a policy in line with traditional U.S. strategy. They would work with the military to institute reforms and more freedom, while jettisoning the aged, ineffective President Hosni Mubarak. But they opposed the dismantling of the regime.
The White House rejected that approach. They publicly declared a desire for Egypt’s fundamental transformation.
Anyone who knew Egypt should have and could have predicted this meant Islamist dominance. Yet the administration rejected the idea that this might happen. Indeed, without being asked, Obama publicly stated that he had no problem with a Muslim Brotherhood government taking power. Obama deliberately didn’t consult with the leaders of Israel, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia because he didn’t want to hear their warnings about the risks he was taking and their opposition to what he was doing.
He had already decided that a Brotherhood regime would be his preferred outcome.
By such actions, Obama conveyed to the military that it could not expect U.S. support, and this made it impossible for the generals to try to retain control over events. Indeed, in the following months, U.S. policy under Obama’s direction constantly criticized the military and called for a quick transition.
But that did not mean that the Obama administration supported the moderate opposition. Reportedly, U.S. programs that helped prepare political forces for elections and taught them lessons about organizing were directed to the Brotherhood, not the liberals. There was certainly no systematic effort to help the moderates.
Indeed, in briefings to Congress and the media literally every day in 2011 and throughout 2012, the Obama administration — under the president’s supervision — whitewashed the Brotherhood as a moderate organization. Anti-American speeches by Brotherhood leaders, calls for jihad against Israel, extremist actions, and support for violence against U.S. soldiers in Iraq were all ignored.
The best-known example was intelligence director James Clapper’s declaration that the Brotherhood was a secular, moderate group.
You spoke for me. America’s influence in the Middle East is great; and under Obama’s leadership it has continued to be great, but not in serving American interests, or America’s values, but in assisting the Islamists to dominate. America can find no friendly Egyptians as the Copts and the liberals, and these have felt betrayed by the U.S. The Egyptians who now see America as ally (of course Obama’s America) are the Islamists, both Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists; and these have no respect for America’s values; and like the wolves in sheep clothing, you can’t trust them at all.
Thanks, the moderates don’t become anti-American–though some see where things are going and opportunistically join the other side–but they become demoralized, give up, flee to other countries, and so on.
IF anyone wants a laundry list of how the Islamist-in-Chief helped to effectuate an Islamist take over, I have accumulated too many indictments to cite here.
The list against him is so long, so deep, and so all encompassing, a court of law could lock him up for 2 life sentences!
But if just one example is needed, here it is – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/12/the-islamist-in-chief-helped-install-morsi-the-muslim-brotherhoods-point-man-for-egypt-1-1-2-addendum-to-white-house-mandates-aid-to-morsi-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
If still unconvinced, just keep strolling down the blog, and a laundry list will seal the people’s indictment!
Anybody with a Muslim father is automatically a Muslim, whether he likes it or not! If he converts to anything else, that’s considered apostasy and is punishable by death. We elected a Muslim president and the death and destruction we have witnessed all follow from that.
You write that because America helped install a relatively secular government in Libya that Americans would be targets for Islamists? Isn’t the point of the rest of the article that this is worth the tradeoff–ie, better Islamists who hate you for keeping them out of power than tacitly helping Islamists into power who will still hate you? Not trying to play Devil’s Advocate, just trying to understand the criticism of Obama’s handling of Libya.
Also, if memory serves, we have a recent instance in which an American administration encouraged Arabs not to vote for Islamists–the 2006 elections in Gaza. Condoleeza Rice, representing an America much more feared than the America of today, told the Palestinians not to vote for Hamas, and look what we got. I’m all for helping whiskey swigging generals stay in power as much as we can, but it seems once the elections come, outside of parts of North Africa, it’s hopeless.
Nate: Of course you are right that this is preferable. My point, however, is that one could expect trouble including the ambassador’s assassination and an extended terrorist campaign there. As for the Gaza elections, there was no U.S. campaign about who to vote for. In fact, the Bush Administration raised no objection to Hamas running even though it was not qualified to do so because it did not accept the Oslo Accords. Previously, Hamas had boycotted elections to avoid meeting that test. Not trying to keep out Hamas–whether or not they would have succeeded–was a mistake by the Bush Administration.
The thing that most disturbed me under Bush was his failure to insist that Iraq drop the official state of war against Israel.
I didn’t even know that! Wow — thanks for enlightening me.
You’re absolutely right then — Bush, whom I liked very much, and continue to like, and think will go down as a great president (the one’s most hated during their time always improve with age) definitely erred in that.
Although he’d probably argue that he didn’t have much leverage there, I’d disagree. He could have forced them — and then later if they wanted they could have “declared war” with all its intended pugilistic connotations.
– FF
“If Obama had backed the moderates, they probably would have done much better in the elections.”
I don’t see any indication that this is true. The weakness of non-Islamist parties and political figures has almost nothing to do with a lack of American support and almost everything to do with the nature of politics under the Mubarak regime (in which moderate opposition figures were either repressed or coopted, and during which time they failed to successfully pursue alternative forms of politics, such as the building of a social movement a la the Brotherhood). Their performance since the fall of Mubarak has demonstrated the lack of any agreement on goals or organizing principles, the inability to craft a political message or platform that appeals to a broad swath of the Egyptian public, the unwillingness to do the work required to mobilize support on the ground (something the Brotherhood excels at), and the inability of prominent personalities to work together. In what way could U.S. support have overcome these obstacles?
I generally agree with you but I didn’t say they would have won but that they would have done better. They didn’t get funding for training or encouragement–perhaps covertly even pressure–to work together. These things aren’t all or nothing but the question is: What policy should one follow to try to improve matters.
There’s an excellent two hour debate on this topic based on the motion “”Better elected Islamists than dictators”:
http://www.danielpipes.org/12026/elected-islamists-dictators
To make things short, the “for” argument is that busting open the political space for Islamists somehow allows moderates to challenge them in the future, but their side failed to make the case on how this would happen once Islamists take control of all state institutions.
Good point. And remember the Islamists are not going to play by democratic rules. Even if the Brotherhood doesn’t do dirty tricks–beating up anti-Islamists; trashing their offices, etc.–they know the Salafists will do the job for them.
The point is good. Interestingly your analysis is not without historical instances. In many a document about Hitler’s “Machtergreifung”, viz. “Seizure of Power” from 1933 on, one hears and reads the opinion by contemporaries that governmental responsiblity will tame the tiger. Even the NYT expressed this hope in 1933. Chaimberlain viewed Hitler as vulgar, nevertheless as a man who will cut a deal and hold to his word. So, we got “Peace in Our Time” followed by WW II. Heck, I can remember sitting in my car in America listening to the radio reporter inform us Americans about Khomenei as the “democrate” par excellence. Something blinded the reporter’s analytical skills. A liberal ideology?
There is one question haunting me about Obama that you have never really touched upon. Your article paints, PERHAPS, a picture of Obama as a super-Chaimberlain, who holds to the fundamental goodness of Brotherhood Islam despite its spelled out anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, etc. Wait a moment! My comparison of Obama with a super-Chaimberlain might be misleading. Why? In no way can one make a case that Chaimberlain was PRO-nazi, particularly with its well-known extremism. Chaimberlain, like so many post-WW I Europeans, so wanted peace that he let himself be blinded by the “hope and change” of his day. My PERHAPS comparison is inadequate. Chaimberlain showed NO preference for the Nazis (let us say Hitler = Brotherhood over Röhm = Salafist), just a self-deluding desire for “peace”. Is such a self-delusion valid for Obama? The picture painted in the article (and in others in PJ Media, Pundicity, etc.) leaves me with the uncomforatble inclination to believe that Obama is de facto in favor of a core Islam of the Brotherhood type — and not PERHAPS. Am I making an unwarranted conclusion? It bothers me, the very thought. Alas, I cannot think otherwise. Any calming corrections?
A direct answer to your question is, in my opinion, that Obama is inscrutable. And in that sense, his intentions don’t matter as his actions are essentially the equivalent of one who might have such evil inclinations. It’s not clear to me that he does — although certainly many other people seem to think that he really really does have a “program” to deflate, devalue, de-fang, and generally diminish the USA as we know it. To deny us our “exceptionalism” if you will. That’s not clear to me however — but as I mentioned, I don’t think it much matters.
On the earlier topic of “government supposedly ‘taming’ the radical politician” — the exact such nonsense was hear throughout the liberal MSM (I guess that’s redundant) when Hamas was running and/or won. Remember all the “having to pick up the trash will make them tame” arguments?
It was classic Thomas Friedman nonsense — the gross mistake of course being that Hamas, or any other totalitarian state government has any interest in picking up the trash and, in general, doing the bidding of the public.
What utter nonsense. What a classic example of applying local mores to a far flung land! What a great example of how incredibly special the Western way of life is!
Also, what an argument for how exceptional the blessed United States are!
– FF
I dunno. I think the only way to combat Islamism is to defeat it culturally. Make it less appealing than Western civilization.
Look at Turkey. It’s great leader Ataturk decided he had enough of his country being backward and tried to Westernize it as much as he could, trying to institutionalize Western values.
But that’s failed. Turkey is now basically an Islamist state, slightly better than Iran. And how did they come into power? By being voted in, and dismantling Ataturk’s safeguards.
But unfortunately, Western civilization has lost its mojo, thanks to the left. It no longer values its own values, it constantly produces self-hating movies, music, and academics.
I don’t mind real warfare, either, when the savages have it coming to them. But the ideological/cultural war needs a front seat as well. For the last 10 years, at least, an ideological alternative to islam hasn’t even been in the car.
You lie down with dogs, you’re sure to get fleas.
There’s no reasoning with Islamists. EVER. Their lies (taqiyya), their Sharia (law-my-ass), their Jihad (bombing themselves to virgin goats)…
This current administration is housing the enemy from within.
The biggest mistake was Step Zero. Obama originally supported Mubarak-led reforms and then tossed Mubarak under the bus. At that point, we should have offered Mubarak asylum and gotten he and his family out of Egypt. By not offering asylum we told every other dictator “you have nowhere to go, death is your only option”. We could have easily incentivized Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad leaving peacefully and then worked to establish something other than Islamist governments. Instead, we handed Egypt and Libya to established enemies, and are well on our way to doing the same in Syria.
It’s all well and good for Obama to boldly proclaim “Hosni Mubarak has to go” but you have to give him somewhere to go. Instead, the Exalted One said “you can choose humiliation and death if you go, or death and humiliation if you stay”. You’d think that Obama would have looked around Congress at the “Senators for Life” and “Representatives for Life” and understood a bit about the addiction to power. Our politicians will do anything to hold their power – and they and their families won’t be slaughtered if they lose an election. Obama is only the smartest President in history if you consider what the State Department does “Smart Diplomacy”.
It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that the Big Zero failed Step Zero. But he got a lot of people killed in the process so it’s probably a net plus in his book.
Why are Muslims hyper-sensitive to insults to their faith? Because their faith is intellectually indefensible.
A Jew and a Christian may disagree on critical points of faith but both share a healthy and universally beneficial Judeo-Christian ethic. Islam does not.
Moses and Jesus were innovators. What is Mohamed’s contribution to mankind beyond the demand for universal submission to Arab hegemony?
Islam converts by the sword (or more recently by the bomb) because absent coercion, no rational person would buy into it.
If people were simply encouraged to apply their minds to get a good sense of the teachings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by carefully reading the scriptures of each before deciding which to reject, the Qur’an would be rejected by an overwhelming majority.
He told Murbarak to step down, killed Gaddafy,
Obama is ineffectual because he does not understand how things work in the tough neighborhood of the middle east. He thinks that he does because of his background which makes him dangerous. He confuses what is a temporary arrangement based on mutual interest with grand concepts like mutual respect and tolerance. He thinks that people need to like us first and then everything just falls into place.
The Egyptians who overthrew Mubarak lost all confidence in us when we helped them do it.
So we are less respected, giving more for less, and somehow this is good for the country?
Don’t think so.
Personally I would rather be feared and respected by those I do business with, then liked and walked on, and laughed at behind my back.
Obama believes he can part the seas with a speech but nobody believes his empty rhetoric. His words mean nothing to the Islamic radicals. They only understand one thing…might makes right and if you don’t show them your might then they are emboldened and even more resolved to spread their jihad. Appeasement never works.
Well, I guess you could say Obambi took the easiest way out in Egypt. He can now say look, we got peace in Egypt. If he had backed the Military he would be accused of backing a Military coup and that would have been right even if it was the best way out for the people of Egypt. The Military was pro-western, friendly toward America and for the people. As you said, it wouldn’t be long before the Military set up a fair civilian government.
If he had backed the secular side, the Salafists and the Brotherhood would have fought to take control. There would have been an even bloodier terrorist style, civil war and they probably would win anyway in the end.
By backing the Brotherhood, at least it will keep them busy for awhile getting settled in before they can begin to cause much trouble. My guess is Obambi was hoping it would keep them busy long enough for him to get reelected. What he thought he would do after that is anyone’s guess. Maybe he still thinks they can be reasoned with. That or he’s just going to throw them Israel hoping that will satisfy them. Anyway, to most people here in the States, it will be seen as less fighting, no more Civil War and they will think this is a good thing. When things go to the dogs and the Islamists start acting up again people will just say there they go again, can’t these people ever get along? Oh well, maybe if we ignore them they will go away. Most people here in the States couldn’t find Syria on a map if their lives depended on it and couldn’t care less what kind of government they have. As far as Egypt, about all they know about it is that that is where they got those pyrimidy thingys right? Oh, they had a mean old dictator in charge and we helped throw him out? Gee, that’s great. So, you say the Brotherhood took over? Is that something like the teamsters? Oh well, Dancing is coming on, gotta go.
Thank you Barry Rubin for that excellent analysis. I have 3 comments: (1) Unfortunately, Mitt Romney talks about Turkey as a strong U.S. ally, just as Obama does. The Romney campaign does not seem to comprehend what has happened in Turkey. (2) (Nate’s comment touches on this.) The paragraph in the essay about Libya is confusing. Prof. Rubin points out that it is the only place where Obama did not support the Islamists. But then Prof. Rubin goes on to say that the U.S. will then be attacked by the Islamists for not supporting them. Professor Rubin does not think it is usually productive to analyze Obama’s psychology – “What does Obama really believe?” – is not a fruitful question. So politics should be analyzed from a behaviorist rather than a cognitive perspective. I believe that from that point of view it is easy to analyze Obama’s policy: except in the case of Al Qaida, which a direct threat to the U.S., and which for domestic political reasons must the attacked, the United States will yield to power. For, according to this view, power is the true measure of popular will. And rather than power having the tendency to corrupt, it rather has the tendency to moderate. So as long as the revolutionaries do not directly threaten the U.S. with actions, if not with words, Obama will not stand in their way. Nay, he will even help them. The key test for Obama is whether the revolutionaries look stable in the long run. (3) The Romney campaign has not said very much about what the current policy toward Egypt should be now that the Moslem Brotherhood is in power. Does he oppose the more than 5 billion in aid that Obama is going to give? Does Prof. Rubin oppose that aid? Does it depend on Egypt’s behavior? In the long term, it is clear that the Moslem Brotherhood sees war and annihilation of Israel as a non-negotiable goal.
Thanks for an interesting analysis – as well as the comments below. From a European perspective the upcoming American presidential election will be important, thinking of the future foreign policy of the US. But as someone has already pointed out, Romney and Obama seem to share many views, for example their failure to see what is happening in Turkey. The new Middle-East does not look promising, and the Anglo-American world is part of that problem. I fear that the US(-UK) is tying itself to the Islamist movements in the Islamic world, and they risk that continental Europe shake hands with Russia and China instead, effectively ending NATO. A country like Germany has been reluctant to support everything that the US (and UK) is doing as it has interests in a good relationship with Russia and China.
Greetings from Europe
Thank you for the thoughful, and discouraging, analysis. I don’t want to ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence, and to that extent I wonder whether Obama wanted to look like a leader on the side of history by pushing matters in Libya after seeing the so-called Arab Spring in Egypt. That doesn’t explain, though, his refusal to lend any support to the Persian Spring in Iran.
It’s as though he has a kind of reverse Midas’ touch: everything he touches turns to Islamism. This may be explained by the (psycho)analysis of Obama as an anti-colonialist wannabe.
On the other hand, it may be that leftist Rousseauvian noble savage fantasy, that all peoples are naturally peace-loving would be living in harmony were it not for the negative effects of Western imperialism. All the “resets,” etc. would then be a result of thinking that if we renounce Western imperialist intent, if not in so many words, peoples will relax and go back to being peace-loving and ready to live in harmony.
Or, perhaps, it’s a roundabout way of acting out the notion that Israel is a nuisance and if she “just happens” to get obliterated, she won’t be a bother to us (and to our anti-”Zionist” progressive sensibilities) anymore.
So maybe not malice versus incompetence, but stupidity with just enough malice to enable the stupidity. Maybe Obama et al. believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will be moderate and secular if Western imperialism isn’t getting in their way. And that’s just stupid.
On the other hand, it may be that leftist Rousseauvian noble savage fantasy, that all peoples are naturally peace-loving would be living in harmony were it not for the negative effects of Western imperialism. All the “resets,” etc. would then be a result of thinking that if we renounce Western imperialist intent, if not in so many words, peoples will relax and go back to being peace-loving and ready to live in harmony.
I think that’s about right. Pretty embarrassing how simplistic and childish are the central ideas of our contemporary “intelligentsia”, isn’t it?
Shouldn’t that be “effected”?
Obama’s been fiddling while the Middle East burns.
He’s managed to get the worst of both worlds – expense and blame to the U.S. for intervening and anti-American regimes rising to power. (In Egypt now, in Syria later. Libya is OK for the moment, but much shakier than it should be – see below.)
Obama screwed up in Libya, by as usual, waiting to act until the last possible moment. When the rebellion against Gaddafi started, major elements of his forces were starting to desert.
Bing West (who is very knowledgeable in this area) said that if the U.S. had acted then – Gaddafi’s regime would have gone poof, with minimal fighting. All that had to happen was a U.S. show of force – a flight of F-16s over Tripoli.
But Obama dithered, while Gaddafi rallied his forces and recruited mercenaries. Obama blew a billion $ worth of cruise missiles to hammer Gaddafi’s forces – but by that time he’d dug in for a fight. The result was what we see now – a very weak state where Islamist paramilitaries have established themselves during the drawn-out fighting.
The problem with Obama and the leftist creed is that they feel little if any pride in Western civilization. Obama has effective abandoned the President’s role as “Leader of the Free World” just a Prince Charles causally discarded his title as ” Defender of trhe Faith”.
Restoration of American influence and valuses will require several things:
1) The elimination of fossil fuels as a source of wealth. This neuters Islam and Russia at the same time.
2) Arm the Copts and Kurds: This will fundamentally change the Mid east in a way that supportuig Israel cannot do.
3) Let the EU collapse and focus on developing ties with South America.