This is why, for example, Obama wants the Turkish and Egyptian armies to accept an Islamist regime, why he is for Syria getting one too, and why he wants Israel to accept whatever risks and to make whatever concessions are required to end the conflict right away no matter what the consequences. (Though American officials say that the demographic issue — which is simply nonsense — means that Israel better make the best deal possible now.)

American allies cannot win, and if they try, they’ll just make the Islamists angrier.

The White House, it is forgotten now, even wanted to overthrow the pro-American regime in Bahrain, and might have helped them replace it if the Saudis hadn’t stopped them.

I am not joking. I wish I were.

Remember what the two NSC staffers said in representing Obama policy, because it deserves to be recorded for history:

Such a move [fighting the Islamists in Egypt] would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere.

The Obama administration, on the basis of the current CIA director John Brennan’s Doctrine  has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for releasing (which means not attacking) the United States is the Middle East.

Naturally, this is also involved in domestic politics, since the Obama administration will be largely judged by voters — including in the 2014 congressional elections — on whether they can prevent such (imaginary) attacks. The theme is consistent as just another way of protecting the American people while accumulating more votes.

It should be emphasized that, aside from everything else, this is a ridiculous U.S. strategy because the Brotherhood and Salafists haven’t even thought of this tactic.

This isn’t just a surrender; it’s a preemptive surrender.

—————————-

Also see Barry Rubin’s “Egypt: A Teachable Moment in World History“.