Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

A statement from two National Security Council senior staff members has revealed the private deliberations of President Barack Obama and his administration. It is of incredible importance, and I plead with you to read it. If you do, you will comprehend fully what’s happening with U.S. foreign policy.

First: Egypt, Egypt, Egypt. There are more words written about this event than there are demonstrators in Tahrir Square. But what does it mean for the future? Note that in the face of advancing totalitarianism in the Middle East, U.S. policy completely failed. Imagine what would have happened with the Nazis without Winston Churchill and Great Britain in the 1940s. The U.S. government of today was not only ready to leave Middle Easterners to their fate; it even sided with their actual or potential oppressors.

So who has been waging the battle against totalitarianism there? The people of Iran and Turkey, who have not won in part because the United States failed to encourage the former and did not encourage the Turkish army to do what the Egyptian army did; the embattled Tunisian and Lebanese ant-Islamists; the Saudis (at times); and the Persian Gulf Arabs (except for Qatar) and Jordan.

Oh, yes: also Israel, the most slandered and falsely reviled country on Earth.

This background leads us to Barack Obama’s Big Decision. In Egypt, is he going to come down on the side of the Islamist ex-regime — remember this includes the Salafists in objective terms — or the new regime?

What remarkable irony: Obama endlessly apologized for past U.S. support for dictators, then ended up adding a new chapter to that history and further stoked anti-Americanism. Remember that during one of his last conversations with ex-President Muhammad al-Mursi, Obama told him that he still regarded him as the democratically elected president of Egypt.

Of course, Obama will have to end up recognizing the new government — the remaining questions are regarding how much recognition he will offer and for how long he will resist doing it. Pitifully, we must realize that the best possible result is that he will accept the rulers in Cairo and continue the economic aid. In fact, he should increase it — we should not be talking about punishment for the coup, but in fact be offering a rich reward to show others which way the wind blows.

Will Obama learn from this situation? Will he stop seeking to install a regime in Syria that is worse than Mursi’s? Will he increase support for the real Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions? Will he recognize the true strategic realities of Israel and stop seeking to install a regime like Mursi’s in the territories captured by Israel in 1967? (I refer here to Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, which might well give way to Hamas after a state would be established.)

So far, it looks like Obama is determined to be the protector of oppressive dictatorship in Egypt, which Obama formerly complained about when prior presidents did just that. Specifically, U.S. diplomats are now urging a deal: a coalition government in Egypt in which the Brotherhood has part of the power.

You can imagine how well that would work, and how grateful the Brotherhood (much less the Salafists) and their opponents will be to Obama for proposing they surrender. In other words: the army, the former opposition, and the Islamists … in short, all of the Egyptian people, no matter which side they are on, will see America as an enemy.

The Obama administration has called on Egyptian leaders to pursue “a transparent political process that is inclusive of all parties and groups,” including “avoiding any arbitrary arrests of Mursi and his supporters.” Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said this on July 4 in a statement.

I don’t recall such a statement ever being made in criticism of the Mursi regime.

According to Bloomberg News:

Two U.S. officials who asked not to be identified commenting on [Obama's] private communications said the administration is concerned that some in the military may want to provoke the violence and provide a rationale for crushing the movement once and for all.

Then, the critical statement that explains Obama’s Middle East policy. Pay close attention:

Such a move would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda-type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere, the U.S. officials said.

What is this statement implying? Remember this is a White House policy statement. It clearly notes that the White House believes that if the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps the Salafists are denied power in Muslim-majority countries, they cannot be defeated, and further, will be radicalized to pursue September 11-style attacks on America.

In other words, the United States must surrender and betray its allies or else it faces disaster.

This is called surrender and appeasement. And, besides, such a move would fail.

But: we now have a public statement describing a coherent Obama policy. Inquire no more, this is it.

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“.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Obama's foreign policy may be appeasement. But, that is only phase 1. He is consciously and deliberately betraying his country. It is called treason.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Appeasement you say? To a rational person perhaps. But you have too much integrity to understand the undercurrents. For it looks like appeasement to you but to a Marxist, it is SURRENDER. He is surrendering to our enemies because that's what he does. He is cloaking his endangerment of our nation and her allies with the cloth of appeasement. Because he dare not say, as he did in his "autobiography" I STILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS. Listening to this evil man is like listening to speeches from the Old (?) Soviet Union. You need experts to translate and then you still need to WATCH WHAT THEY DO, not what they say. His "foreign policy" is FOREIGN to Americans who are used to presidents acting on behalf of the best interests of our nation. This man, steeped in America bashing/hatred is a domestic enemy. We need to be aware of what he really trying to accomplish.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This "policy" stinks of Muslim Brotherhood influence in the WH not just Brennan alone. Why else would Obama want to protect Morsi?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (41)
All Comments   (41)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my classmate's mother-in-law makes $75 every hour on the internet. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her income was $12112 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more... www.Can99.com
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
but how can the media not support B.O. after all he told us he was such a great statesman because he grew up in Indonesia, which I guess means that a lot of people over there would be far better to lead this country, as they still live there and deal with the problems.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Preemptive surrender." Yes Barry, that is just the kind of 'smart' move that a post colonial college professor would come up with. I don't blame the many commenters who bluntly call it treason, but I have frequented the Eastern Intellectual Establishment circles that Obama comes from enough to recognize the kind of self double crossing ego inflation peculiar to this particular elite. Back in the day when that establishment still had a moral compass FDR quoted an old Eastern Orthodox proverb: 'It is permissible to take the hand of the Devil until you cross the bridge.' to explain his alliance with Stalin. Obama demonstrates no such recognition of the danger of his actions. He has no compass, much less a moral one. And thank you for spotting the revealing policy statement that confirms your ongoing analysis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And the PA is different from Mursi how?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Appeasement, to be sure, is part of the package. But there is more. The Islamist-in-Chief truly subscribes to the ideologies/policies brought to bear by the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia. He is in sync with them, as are his henchmen. Yes, they are -http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/07/06/egypts-brotherhood-mafia-defanged-for-now-yet-muslim-brotherhood-calling-the-shots-in-america-how-did-this-happen-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Jarrett, Powers, Brennan, Hagel, Clapper, and previously, Hill & Huma, are knee deep in the fray.

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So Mao was right?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I reposted the article on FB. I hope that we are at least approaching the day when US citizens will let their representatives in Congress know that they want legal action, defined by the Constitution and amendments, to remove this man from power.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/08/Benghazi-book-fred-burton-samuel-m-katz

Whatever one thinks of this detailed account of what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/2012, what struck me was the mention of how many Egyptians were/are buying all sorts of weapons in the post-Qaddafi Benghazi weapons bazaar. (I read the print version today)

Made me wonder if Egypt's military is aware they have to stop the MB NOW, from becoming embedded jihadis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I believe that Obama knows that no matter what we do the Islamists will continue their stated goal of destroying the Great Satan, the USA. By doing what he is doing he is merely greasing the skids for them. He is doing this because it dovetails nicely with his own goal of destroying America. Its terrible the that the so-called loyal opposition does nothing to stop him from destroying our country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All