Secretary of State Kerry Shows He Doesn’t Have a Clue About How Foreign Policy Works
During his confirmation hearings, Secretary of State-designate John Kerry was only given a tough time by one questioner, Senator Rand Paul. The exchange between them is interesting not just because of the specific topic, but also because of what it shows about basic foreign policy philosophy — and ignorance — on Kerry’s part.
It is a genuine problem. The leader of a “friendly” nation has been exposed for making anti-Semitic remarks. The United States wants to continue aid to avoid instability in that country that would contribute to even further radicalization, and to use U.S. leverage to produce the best possible outcome.
Unfortunately, Kerry subscribes — as is so fashionable today in the Obama administration and academia — to what I’ll call the “abusive relationship approach” to foreign policy.
If another country supports you and is good for your interests, you take that country’s good will for granted and mistreat it. If another regime — say, Turkey, Pakistan, Venezuela, Egypt, and, at times in the recent past, Syria and Iran — walks all over you, then you chase after it all the more passionately and shower it with presents.
(For my background critique of the administration’s response to the Morsi statements, see here.)
In the hands of a good realpolitik statesman, this balance would be managed well. For example: former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would have kept the Egyptian government off-balance and made it understand that Washington was doing it a favor by providing aid. In other words, leverage would be used.
But in Kerry’s hands, leverage is tossed away. He is so afraid of using power or being tough that he throws away leverage, believing there can be no risk of problems. The recipient must not be intimidated or pressed to change, but instead shown that America is its friend — not the imperialist bully that people like Kerry and President Barack Obama see when they look back at U.S. history.
Precisely the same problem was displayed notably in two other recent cases (though readers can probably add more):
– When the Palestinian Authority approached the UN seeking membership and recognition as a state, the Bush administration made it clear to the UN and allies that there would be a strong price to pay in U.S. support and donations. The PA backed down.
With Obama opposing the same thing but not playing any trump cards, America’s “friends” almost unanimously voted against Washington’s position, and it suffered a serious loss whose costs (including the permanent destruction of the “peace process”) have not yet been counted.
– When it was suggested to Kerry that U.S. aid to Pakistan be held up until it released a political prisoner, a doctor who helped America locate Osama bin Laden and who is now in prison and reportedly has been tortured, Kerry refused.
America must be the one humiliated; the feelings of other countries cannot be hurt.
Here’s the exchange with Rand Paul:
Rand Paul: “Do you think it’s wise to send [Egypt] F-16s and Abrams tanks?”
Kerry: “I think those [anti-Semitic] comments are reprehensible, and those comments set back the possibilities of working toward issues of mutual interest. They are degrading comments, unacceptable by anybody’s standard, and I think they have to appropriately be apologized for …”
Kerry, of course, isn’t answering the question. He is detaching the remarks from Muslim Brotherhood ideology and from U.S. policy. This is meaningless rhetoric on his part. It does, however, raise the intriguing problem of what Kerry would do, since President Morsi isn’t going to apologize. That would have been a good question. Of course, he would do nothing.
Rand Paul [cutting Kerry off]: “If we keep sending them weapons, it’s not gonna change their behavior.”
Here is the essential question, and the one that Kerry doesn’t want to answer. What reason is there to believe that the U.S. supply of arms would change the Brotherhood government’s policies? Rather than moderate its policy, wouldn’t these arms merely enable the regime to follow a more radical position? Against whom would these arms be used?
Kerry: “Let me finish. President Morsi has issued two statements to clarify those comments, and we had a group of senators who met with him just the other day who spent a good part of their conversation in a relatively heated discussion with him about it … ”
Yes, Morsi issued two statements but they were not to take back his prior words but only to double down on them, since he asserted that the statements had been taken out of context by the Zionist-controlled media. The man isn’t misspeaking. He’s just saying what he believes.
Kerry and Obama refuse to recognize that he believes these things.
Lucky for them, they didn’t have to answer to Morsi’s and his colleagues’ anti-American statements. I can’t figure out why more use hasn’t been made of the strongly anti-American statements (including support for terrorist attacks on Americans, and rejoicing about the alleged downfall of the United States due to Obama’s leadership) repeatedly made by Brotherhood leaders.
Kerry [continuing]: ”We have critical interests with Egypt. Critical interests. Egypt has thus far supported and lives by the peace agreement with Israel, and has taken steps to start to deal with the problem of security in the Sinai. Those are vital to us, and to our national interests, and to the security of Israel … ”
Yes, the United States does have critical interests with Egypt. Yet how can these interests be best maintained? Remember that Kerry previously insisted that the critical interests the United States had with Syria could be best maintained by rewarding the anti-American dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad.
Has Egypt so far supported and lived by the peace agreement with Israel, etc.? Well, technically yes, though in a real sense the Egyptian government has not yet begun to govern in its full framework. For example, parliament has not convened yet. Moreover, the government has only acted cosmetically to deal with the security problem in the Sinai, reportedly making a deal with the Salafist terrorists to leave them alone if they cooled it — for a while.
What Kerry suggests, but doesn’t prove, is that U.S. interests are best maintained by not criticizing or pressuring Egypt’s government. The only alternative to Obama policy is not breaking with Egypt, but using traditional diplomatic methods to get what the United States should want.
Kerry: “The fact that sometimes other countries elect someone that you don’t completely agree with doesn’t give us permission to walk away from their election … ”
Wow. This is truly ignorant. Just because Egyptians — or anyone else — elected a government does not mean that U.S. policy must accept whatever that government does.
Yet I think Kerry and Obama actually believe that it does mean that.
Moreover, the Brotherhood didn’t just win but had U.S. backing. It was the party Obama favored. And now, of course, the regime has killed dozens of Egyptians in anti-government riots. It has also jammed through an ultimately anti-democratic constitution. The money and weapons the United States gives the Brotherhood government will help it consolidate power, buy off dissent, and be able to repress the population. Is that what U.S. interests require? The consolidation of an Islamist regime in Egypt?
(I don’t have space now to give the explanation as to why the idea Obama didn’t have any such leverage is flatly wrong, but have done so in previous articles.)
Rand Paul: “This has been our problem with our foreign policy for decades — Republican and Democrat. We funded bin Laden, we funded the [Afghan] Muhjahideen. We were in favor of radical jihad because they were the enemy of our enemy. We’ve done this so often. I see these weapons coming back to threaten Israel. … Why not just not give weapons to Israel’s enemies [to try and prevent a potential arms race]? That might save us a lot of money and might make it safer for Israel.”
Senator Paul is not exactly right here. It is not true — in fact it is an anti-American slander — to say that the United States funded bin Laden. It did support Afghan Islamist forces, but has not backed other Islamist revolutionary groups to any serious extent in the last four decades or so.
What Obama is doing is largely unprecedented.
Paul also missed an opportunity to point out that arms were sold to some countries precisely because they had made peace with Israel, and other countries because they supported U.S. policy generally despite being very anti-Israel. Arms were not given, however, to countries led by anti-American revolutionary Islamist groups that also openly declared their support for genocide of Israel and all Jews generally.
Kerry: “Better yet, until we are at that moment, where that might be achievable, maybe it’d be better to try and make peace.”
Wow, again. This is the mentality that has repeatedly crippled U.S. Middle East policy. It goes like this:
– We want peace.
– Therefore, we should not evaluate what policies are most likely to succeed, but merely those that can allow us to say that peace remains possible.
For example, even if the PA rejects talks for four years, we shouldn’t criticize or pressure it because that might make peace less likely, etc.
– It might work so we can’t “give up,” we must “keep trying.” Even though this period is not conducive to progress, and even while other U.S. policies (especially backing of Islamists) actually make peace even more impossible to achieve.
Two final points. First: in Kerry’s worldview, the more extremist a state becomes, the more it is necessary to propitiate it so as to avoid losing influence or the “chance for peace.”
Second: he should be capable of making a sophisticated argument about precisely how America being tolerant of Morsi’s behavior and providing advanced weapons is going to advance American interests. The unspoken theory is that it will make the Egyptian military happy and able to overturn the regime. But — of course — the regime will name the army’s commanders, the armed forces have shown they don’t want to get involved in politics, and, at any rate, many officers are pro-Brotherhood or even pro-Salafist.
In other words, in Egypt (as in Pakistan by the way), there is no credible mechanism for turning financial or military aid into influence.
Kerry isn’t just wrong, he’s totally clueless. And as just about the most openly arrogant man in American public life, he will never let reality penetrate his ideological armor.





Yes, he’s totally clueless but President Obama is the most openly arrogant man in American public life. Kerry’s number two but trying hard to catch up.
Good old John Knevell “I Served in Vietnam”, Kerry. It’s a lot more than Ketchup he’s spreading here. Peace in his time ” et tu ” Kerry? Forgive me but isn’t suplling weapon, especially advanced weapons like F-16′s and M1 Abrams tanks to an Enemy State. Controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Who swears that they will bring down Israel and the United States at the first chance they get. This same Muslim Brotherhood that is Allied with Iran. Isn’t this a whole lot like treason? The closet thing in History that I can think of would be If Roosevelt had of supplied V-1 & V-2 missiles to Nazi Germany. Or if Dow Chemical had of supplied free of charge. Zyclon B to Germany
Is Kerry (and also Obama) clueless – or are they both fighting for the wrong side on purpose?
I’m old enough to remember when treason was regarded as a capital offense.
“Kerry and Obama refuse to recognize that he believes these things.”
What if they do but just don’t care?
I think your option is about a million times more likely.
Yep.
I’m quite sick of the “these people just don’t understand!” garbage.
They understand quite well.
They are not clueless, they are not incompetent.
They are the enemy.
It’s like the big guy says, they’re not anti-war, they’re on the other side.
Ya THINK?
And the national benefit of contesting the Kerry nomination when senate votes of confirmation are already in place, would be what?
Because you are such a dick.
Truth has it’s own virtue.
Re:
“And the national benefit of contesting the Kerry nomination when senate votes of confirmation are already in place, would be what?”……
…..would be indicating to the alien and basically anti-American World out there that we Americans don’t want anyone for our Secretary of State who hurled his medals from his military service in VietNam against the steps of our Capitol Building in a mercurial fit. I forget the specific trigger, if you will, for that burst of very angry symbolism; but it’s indicative of a very, very unbecoming temperament not welcome in any Secretary of State.
We need people of genuine mature stature like Cordell Hull, Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger and James Baker to represent us……what on earth qualifies this Kerry character to occupy that office? He’s a lightweight, an empty suit, similar to our chameleon Obama.
Those of us who’ve seen several Secy’s of State come and go simply find this Kerry lacking in just about everything. Hubris is not acceptable.
I fully understand your points Charlie. But heres the problem, as I see it. Foreign relations has long been controlled by the CFR and to a lessor and conflicting extent, the UN and its permanent security council. Then, on the commerce and economic side of foreign relation we have the WTO. In my opinion, until we can figure out how to rid ourselves of the controlling external influences in our government we’re…….
If any of you think that Obama doesn’t know exactly where Egypt is headed then you should be on another web site. He knows that the junk they bought from Russia and with the outdated equipment,they could never invade Israel and have a descent chance of prevailing. With Abram’s and F-16′s the at least have an outside chance. What this man is doing right before our eyes is astonishing. He is selling out our long time ally and friend Israel for the sake of “Peace” in the Middle East. Liberals hate Israel and anything they can do to eliminate it is at the top of their list.
Nice new Abrams and F-16 toys you got from your arms supplier supporter. Nice little Aswan dam you have there too, Pharaoh Morsi. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.
The point of the Kerry appointment is to be so mind numbingly horrific that everyone will forget what a catastrophe Hillary’s stewardship has been. It’s kind of strange that the press seems to think her performance has been slightly better than some combination of Acheson, Dulles and Kissinger, when in fact it has been a combination of Albright and The Three Stooges. And really, between golf and skeet it is not as if Our Glorious Leader is going to have time to care.
There would be immense value in challenging the nomination of John Kerry.
Obama needs to be fought at every turn. He is a monster and as such needs to be continually fought, on very issue.
That he is a monster has been clear since the day of his birth.
When our elected “representatives” refuse to represent our interests, and instead collaborate with the enemy…what to do?
The 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution needs to be operationalized.
“The 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution needs to be operationalized.”
Whats stopping you? Blow yer bugle and get your troops to marching!
I see the ‘fraud’ Zeke is back playing games. Amazing, some socalled adults!
I am the real Zeke.
No living being can be as deranged as the one who calls himself Real Zeke without having his caretakers take away his internet privileges and up his Thorazine dosage.
You’re one sick imposture but no doiubt, consider yourself as an intellectual elite adult around here when not posing to be me. Zeke
The class of people It meets here.
Maybe It should go away.
But It should not go away angry.
It should just go away.
They’re all on the same team.
The New Aristocrats team.
Kerry and Obama refuse to recognize that he believes these things. No they know he believes these things, but they think under multiculturalism that its ok, actually good. Just call them the the anti’s. Anti-Western civilization and anti-Judeo-Christian Heritage, and belief in the “noble savage”. That we’ll just end up with the savages doesn’t bother them.
Kerry couldn’t come up with an answer if someone wrapped field telephone wire around his genitals.
You have just won the thread!
Hmmmm.
I find that statement is a bit hard to believe. Such extraordinary statements require evidence to support them.
It should be verified experimentally.
Terrific post. Rand Paul certainly comes across as the statesman in the exchange. Paul’s military and foreign policy experiences certainly outweigh those of Kerry. Now if Mr. Paul or Mr. Rubin would tell us all exactly what our policy towards Egypt should be, we will all be enlightened. Muslim Brotherhood bad, Morsi bad, Obama, Clinton, Kerry bad, we can all agree. So now what? Criticism is fine, as far as it goes, but shouldn’t we expect some solutions?
We know Rand Paul’s ideas on foreign policy
1) Cut off foreign aid
2) Mind our own damn business
I think it’s certainly a policy worth trying. We constantly force ourselves into other people’s business, and are the results better than if we hadn’t? No, most of the time.
Agreed!
This fire hydrant of United States Dollars aimed willy-nilly makes us a look like fools.
We’ve been doing this since 1917. We never learn.
Paul Sr, certainly has some good foundations for many of the long term ills of the American foreign relations strategies that have been so costly including lives over so many decades now. Just not sure what he would be successful at reforming even, in eight years, if he were to live long enough for two terms. Defeating the CFR, the UN, the WTO and all the many facets they involve would be monumental if possible at all.
If being wrong on virtually every foreign policy question of the last four decades isn’t enough to disqualify this fraud from holding the nation’s highest foreign policy post, then perhaps his perjured ‘winter soldier’ testimony or his negotiations with the north Vietnamese while in uniform most certainly should. In another era, he’d be in Leavenworth or in front of a firing squad.
Our own ‘gang of four’ are in charge of this nation’s slow-motion Cultural Revolution.
Published on Jan 28, 2013 A WARNING from ex-KGB communist defector Yuri Bezmenov from *29 YEARS AGO*, detailing the 4 stages of a Marxist-Leninist revolution and taking over a nation. Watch this at your own risk, as your bones will literally begin to freeze as you start to realize he is describing EXACTLY what is happening today almost to the letter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nXvScRazg&feature=player_embedded
Appreciate your sharing of this link. The parallels are certainly numerous and striking.
At least he says that within one generation, the mind-bending can be undone if there is a successful campaign of education to counter the poison.
I still have hope that this rising generation (or some of them anyway) can learn from the impending crisis, and with hindsight and proper interpretation of reality and facts once the cards are on the table, realize that the Constitution and the freedoms it protects are one of life’s greatest gifts.
Actually, its been happening in overt organized fashion since 30s. Just that not many around here have a living point of reference.
Obama is unwilling to let foreign affairs to get in the way of fundamental change.
Rand Paul ’16…..please let it be so!
If it’s not, it should be evident to every Republican that your representatives in congress have raised the white flag on every value and ideal you and your American forebearers held dear.
That John Carry, who’s evolved to become an American hater with the best of them, would skate through his sec. of state confirmation hearings was totally expected by all government questioning honchos involved, both left and right.
The Republicans are now laying low having been laid low by the last election that told them the American people truly have been transformed by Obama; entitlements and virtually open borders that turned into Democratic voters just being part of the reason.
The biggest cause of the swing left by those who’d you ordinarily expect to still have a voting smidgen of common sense is the mainstream media, an extension of Obama’s communication’s team. His chief of staff now calls them directly.
From the Republican point of view, the Sunday morning Obama shows, Meet the Press Face the Nation, plus the Democratic tilted “Sunday Morning”; plus nightly network news Obama spin during the week, as a group, represent the bunker buster bombs of propaganda that Republicans have no answer for.
Although I agree with their leftist view and most every communist/progressive dictate and teaching, I feel a certain unease as it’s becomes a debate game between an NFL team and a high school football team. I think that deep down there’s a sense of fairness in me that causes this whole sordid situation to make me feel queasy being a part of it.
The Republicans are outsmarted, outclassed and defrauded on the day of every election and on every day between them.
I especially get a kick out of the way the Republicans agree to primary debate moderators ready to eviscerate them as soon as the questioning starts.
The way Candy Crowley shilled for Obama during the second debate was a thing of beauty. Of course, if the shoe was on the other foot, the mainstream media would have had a cow and screamed cheaters from the rafters.
Metaphorically, what is your Republican Party today?
They’re football receiver forced to wear blinders with a head coach that’s a mole for the other team.
A race car driver with a 4 cylinder engine.
A punch drunk boxer.
Consequently, when Republican spokespeople talk publicly, they come off sounding dumb as dirt, and end up looking like the north end of a south horse. My prime example, the head of the Republican party, Mike Duncan.
Good gracious, it’s not as through the Republicans don’t have a lot of dirty ammunition to fire at the Democrats.
Democrats like Kennedy drown late night dates, then leave the scene of the crime.
Black Panthers intimidate voters on election day.
Anthony Weiner, U.S. Representative, lies and strips so the world can see his hot dog.
Obama and Holder send automatic weapons to Mexico willy nilly.
Holder and Obama call U.S. males fighting in Iraq and all other U.S. males cowards when it comes to issues of race.
Obama gives military secrets to the NY Times on a regular basis.
Obama alienates our allies and sends 80 million dollar jets to our enemies while working to neuter the U.S. military.
Obama lets four Americans die in Benghazi without explaining why he didn’t send help. All he did was stonewall and talk about an investigation that didn’t investigate Obama on the night of the massacre.
Just wait till Obama abrogates the second amendment and at the same time holds up a reprint by executive order of the new constitution. Believe it. Obama’s capable of anything.
A gang of Democratic senators call George Zimmerman a killer, as the echo of their calling Duke lacrosse players rapists still rings in the athletes’ ears.
But guess what.
The Republicans don’t nail them to the wall like the Democrats would do if the offending liars were Republicans.
Fact is, if the offenders were Republicans, they would never hear the end of it from the mainstream media and the Democratic mouthpieces on the hill.
Every Sunday morning all year long would be a Republican blood letting ceremony.
You’ve got to admit. Democrats have guts. Except for Alan West, Republicans are gutless. Even down to the bumpers stickers on their cars. Republicans are afraid to put Republican bumper stickers on their cars for fear their cars will be keyed.
One skeleton key to Democratic political victories is an attorney general who won’t get in the way of Democratic lying, cheating, stealing votes or black on white gang crime, which is kept quiet by a complacent mainstream media.
What a mess for a Republican. They may end up afraid to leave their houses. And it never stops.
My only concern is an idea I’ve seen pop on on a few right wing sites about a 21 gun salute on Independence Day, Thursday, 5pm EST. Apparently, every gun owner will open fire.
This in a sense is Obama’s biggest concern. An armed America. In fact, Obama’s going nuts over the rash of gun sales over the past year. That’s why he’s trying so hard to push total gun confiscation. Of course, the first step is Feinstein’s gun control bill. Obama thinks comprehensive gun control is still two years away.
I’ve got to admit one thing positive about Republicans. They’re sure are good taking it constantly on the chin.
In reviewing the uuuuhhhh testimoney of John Kerry …
that long-winded pompous bore needs to have the reflection in his mirror tell him to shut the hell up when he wakes up in the morning and gets his first gander at his horse face.
Rand Paul is doing his job. Challenging Obama and all his hand-picked cronies.
So what if the fix is in.
Call that Fake Spade a Fake Spade who takes advantage of his Rainbow Ethnicity as often as possible (when he is not using Division and Class Envy to gain advantage) as often as you can.
Rand Paul, at least, has refused to be anyone’s doormat. And he is worthy of praise and respect for that alone.
Jerk! And you call yourself an adult???? I see you like to play your games on Rubins blog mostly!
Okay, I know this is off topic, and admittedly don’t know if it’s already been mentioned, but WTF’s with this Scribol thing on every damned article I’ve read here today? I didn’t click many links, but the ones I did go to Salon. Do they pay to advertise on this site?
I didn’t see the link to Salon. The one that caught my eye was “The biggest Boobs on Facebook”.
But yeah, it’s kind of weird.
Kerry Clueless what a discovery!This is the reason he was picked up by Obama,he got all the qualifications required to serve in his administration,clueless liar etc etc.The ideal candidate.The guy is so clueless that in 2004 he could not find his army record.We also know is IQ level.Here in Australia and southeastern Asia the mention of his name (Jean Francois Kerry) the Senator from MA attracts lots of laughters.One thing is sure,there won’t be a dull moment,lots of fun in perspective.
“Only Senator Rand Paul challenged Kerry’s foolishness, though Paul missed plenty of opportunities.”
Well, Mr. Rubin, you know that old saying, “In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king”.
With Kerry, as with Obama, we get a pro-Islamist, anti-Israeli tone coming from the WH. Neither of these two have a clue as to the dynamic of the Middle East as was seen Libya, Syria, and Mali… oops, and Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Chad, Nigeria and Algeria… with shallow, frauds leading our policies, we are in for a tough 4 years… get a weapon of your choice for your own protection…
I have a Marine son who has served in 7 of the African countries and he’s aghast with whatever these jamokes are stating as ‘policy’… ugh!
Take a look at the USSRs activities and influences in South Africa and parts of North African and Middle East, post WII through the Cold War era and as Russia today, to the current times. The U.S. essentially ignored it and now its come home to roost. We were consumed with the old USSR (Eastern Europe) and SEATO (Pacific) strategies, and leveraging natural resources from Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arbia.
Semper Fi to your son!
Leading from Behind, or Friends with Benefits?
On January 24, Senator John Kerry testified before the Senate in his confirmation hearings after being nominated by President Obama to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. In his opening statement, Senator Kerry delivered what was considered by several in the media a curious line: “It is also imperative that in implementing President Obama’s vision for the world as he ends more than a decade of war, we join together to augment our message to the world.” To date, the refrain in journalistic and political circles is that the Obama foreign policy is leading from behind, whatever that means.
Vice President Joe Biden, in response to Republican criticism during the 2012 Presidential race aimed at the administration’s foreign policy modus operandi of leading from behind, said “I know a lot about foreign policy and I know one thing: loose talk is dangerous. The last thing we need is another land war tying us down.” Examined in the context of international events that have had as their impetus American involvement, the Vice President’s statement does seem to accurately convey the style that the administration chooses to exert power. Rather than emulating the Bush era method of full frontal assault on “evildoers,” President Obama has chosen the operational antipode: conduct covert wars through proxies, discreet arms and financing, with the only visible aspect of American policy being conventional diplomatic gestures.
The ongoing scandal of related to the administration’s arming of drug cartels, dubbed Fast and Furious, can be viewed this way. According to a “high ranking member of the Sinaloa drug cartel,” Fast and Furious was to provide arms to the cartel in exchange for information on other cartels. Presumably, the administration was also cognizant of Sinaloa’s rival cartels, namely Los Zetas. In a speech delivered in February 2011, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted that DHS considered cooperation between al-Qaeda and Los Zetas a concern of the agency responsible for preventing future terrorist attacks on America. Since 2009, the administration had been providing military grade weapons to the Sinaloa cartel, whose leader is the infamous “El Chapo” Guzmán, including grenade launchers, anti-aircraft guns, and .50 caliber rifles. While the majority of Americans would undoubtedly support fighting al-Qaeda on our own continent, doing so by arming a cartel headed by the World’s Most Wanted Man may prove less popular in the court of public opinion.
In one of his first major speeches delivered as President, Barack Obama addressed the people of Cairo. Entitled, “A New Beginning,” in the speech Obama praised the historical accomplishments of Islamic culture, and declared that “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.” The speech was seen as a call for more democracy in Arab countries traditionally governed by secular strongmen. Less than two years later in February 2011, President Hosni Mubarak, for decades an American ally in the region, resigned following the abandonment of support by the Obama administration. In the two years since his resignation, the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization which Mubarak suppressed since his election to office, now govern a new, democratic Egypt.
In Libya, the administration put its money (and fighter jets) where its mouth was. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Muammar Gaddafi, whom Reagan had called the “Mad Dog of the Middle East,” renounced Libya’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, leading to a warming of American-Libyan relations. However, in early 2011, the fever of the Arab Spring reached Libya, leading to mass protests against the eccentric, tent-dwelling dictator. In March, the United Nations Security Council, in a reaction to the killing of unarmed civilians, announced a no-fly zone over Libya; a week later, NATO began enforcing it. Soon, NATO air power began assisting the rebels in crippling the Libyan military and pro-Gaddafi forces. Then U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that NATO was “not targeting Gaddafi specifically,” instead focusing on military and logistical sites. On October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was killed by a mob after being anally raped with a bayonet. The Economist reported in January that the Muslim Brotherhood was likely to make further electoral gains, following months of chaos and anarchy.
There was a time when a sitting president was scandalized after it was revealed that their administration was arming rebels in Latin America with demonstrable links to the cocaine trade. A similar, scenario is playing out today in Syria; moreover, it is just the latest in a pattern that is becoming too obvious to ignore, to say nothing of the concrete connections to narcotics trafficking. It may be that the administration does not want the public association with neither dictators, nor the Islamist totalitarians who replace them through the democratic process.
To use the parlance of the day, could it be that the administration’s foreign policy “vision” is no more complicated than… Why get “tied down” when you can have revolutionary friends with benefits?
This unremarkable “kept man” was an unremarkable senator and will be an unremarkable secretary of state.
The best thing about Kerry as SoS will be how well he will screw the whole job up.
Look at the job Hillary did or almost did to herself.
Ask yourself, How many Americans will John Kerry get killed using his vision of foreign policy both abroad and here at home?
I look forward to watching this imbecilee about lying his butt off trying to save his legacy. fail and fail out in front of God and everybody then watch him scuttle and scramble about attempting to save his legacy,
I look forward to watching Kerry fall.His fate determined by the same people and in the same way who watched Ambassador Stevens die and do nothing to help him.