Obama: Regime-Changing Neocon?
Yemen followed. The U.S. initially refrained from coming against President Saleh, but the resilience of the uprising and the ongoing violence exercised by his forces resulted in a similar reversal in policy. The U.S. began working behind the scenes with the Gulf Cooperation Council to push Saleh to step down to no avail. President Obama is now calling for his resignation. Saleh’s rhetoric has taken an anti-American turn and his forces are permitting al-Qaeda to advance. On Sunday, his loyalists trapped ambassadors from the U.S. and Europe inside the embassy of the United Arab Emirates. Clashes between his supporters and opponents are escalating after he bailed on another agreement. These developments make it certain that the U.S. policy of regime change towards Yemen will sharpen.
U.S. policy towards Syria is now just shy of regime change. Secretary of Defense Gates initially responded to the revolution by saying the military should “empower a revolution” as was done in Egypt. He denied calling for regime change, just as Clinton did earlier in regards to Iran, but that’s exactly what he did. In President Obama’s speech last week, he said: “President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that [democratic] transition, or get out of the way.” The official U.S. stance is that Assad still has time left to change his ways but the “window is narrowing.”
In the case of Bahrain, President Obama did not call for regime change but he did call for reform. This reflects the top-down approach towards democratic transition (and therefore, regime change) that he will exercise towards governments whose quick collapse is feared. Obama’s approach towards creating a democratic Middle East may differ from Bush’s, but the goal is the same and just as grandiose and idealistic.
There are many positive things about the speech Obama gave and the policy he articulated, but it has a fatal flaw: It does not recognize and confront the reality that the opposition movements in the Middle East are diverse and there are certain parties we must favor. No program has been outlined to bolster the liberals over the Islamists and no policy to knock the Muslim Brotherhood off-balance.
In fact, Obama’s call for the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders helped the oppressive governments he opposes and made the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the main topic of discussion when, for once, it was not. In so doing, a political environment is created that is more favorable to Islamists as citizens are more likely to support them when Israel is the issue instead of economic improvements and political liberalization. It has also taken the focus off of the massive human rights abuses of Assad and Saleh, when the speech could have put enormous pressure on them.
The Bush-Obama policy of aggressively promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East needs to recognize there are friends and enemies among the opposition movements.
What makes this funny is as if anybody is listening to Obama’s call for regime change anywhere. Like the mullahs in Iran are going to listen to a call for regime change. Obama missed his golden opportunity in 2009 for regime change in Iran when there were riots in the streets and the mullahs were on the ropes, and he missed it.
Mubarak was going to fall with or without Obama’s call for regime change. By Mubarak not getting Obama’s support, all that meant was that Mubarak fell a little faster than if Mubarak got Obama’s support. But with hundreds of thousands of people rioting in the streets, it would be hard to see how Mubarak could have held onto power.
Now do you think Obama calling for regime change in Syria is going to mean anything? Sure, I’ll bet that has Assad shaking in his shoes. As long as Assad can hold on to the army, he stays in power. And that has nothing to do with what America wants or doesn’t want.
Yemen is an even more pathetic case. You’ll note you don’t hear much about Yemen these days in the news. Why? Because we can’t do much in Yemen that won’t make matters worse in that country. A call for regime change in that country will not only change a bad situation into a terrible one, it will probably start a bloody civil war.
Obama would never call for regime change in Bahrain because our 5th Fleet is based there. If Iranian-backed mullahs take over, tell me Mr. President, where will the 5th Fleet go?
As for Libya, well, we all see the magical results of what calling for regime change in that country is getting us. A prolonged and bloody civil war. And if Gaddafi finally does go, it will only be because the French and the British finally put soldiers on the ground in Libya to help the “rebels.” And even if they do kill Gaddafi, this is a tribal country and the tribes that supported Gaddafi won’t look too kindly on Western invaders, especially the United States. You could either have a insurrection like the one that developed in Iraq after we beat Hussein’s forces, or, worse, you could have acts of terrorism directed against the west by the angry tribal members that used to support Gaddafi. Remember, Gaddafi and his henchmen pulled off the Lockerbie bombing years ago. Why can’t they do it again?
In all of these instances, Obama and, especially, Clinton, never quite tell use what will replace the dictator they want to replace. And they certainly never think that somebody worse could replace the dictator they are trying to overthrow. This is amateur diplomacy, what I would expect from college graduates. We need a little more Kissenger these days and less “Harold and Kumar’s Adventure to White Castle.”
“Mubarak was going to fall with or without Obama’s call for regime change”
I gather you aren’t aware that “member’s of the Obama Administration” met with the Google revolutionaries a few months before the “revolution” to encourage them to oust Mubarak.
I’m by no means praising Obama for this. Obama’s major wish during his term in power was to see a Palestinian state established no matter how destructive that might be to the world at large — and especially to Israel. Mubarak was in the way of Gazan’s getting their shipments of arms from Iran and elsewhere. That’s the major reason, from Obama’s point of view, that Mubarak had to “go.”
“I gather you aren’t aware that “member’s of the Obama Administration” met with the Google revolutionaries a few months before the “revolution” to encourage them to oust Mubarak.”
Well, so what? Did they give them money, weapons, armored vehicles? So they met with them. I would think that Google revolutionaries were not nearly as effective at “getting people into the streets” as the Muslim Brotherhood was, let alone all of the communists or socialists in the country. But the Muslim Brotherhood probably saw this as their golden opportunity to not only get rid of Mubarak (who hated the Muslim Brotherhood) but also to take over the country. And, if the current trend continues, the Muslim Brotherhood will take over this fall.
But everything you said about the Palestinians and Gaza was absolutely true too.
We will require a generation or more to recover from the effects of this incompetent’s “foreign Policy” around the world.
You seem to have a need to give the O the benefit of the doubt, despite knowing his leftist, statist predisposition — you seem to think he’s just as “naive” as the well-intentioned but misguided Neo-cons. I don’t agree. Not one bit.
Just what exactly is he really “for?” Think about it.
What direction is the world really heading in? Where is all this going to wind up? Just what is this “new world order” … really. I think it’s obvious. And all the while, the great U.S. had the power to change it for the better, but didn’t use that power for good.
When, in the future, historians look back on this period (that is, if there are still such a thing as historians in the future) — what will they (absent all the blather) conclude about what happened and why?
This is a very flawed analysis.
Obama just came to the rescue of the endangered Arab tyrants by putting the Israel-Palestine issue front and center. The entire purpose of keeping this issue going for the past six decades has been to divert the attention of the Arab people from their true oppressors – their own governments. That is why these horrible regimes have denied Palestinian Arabs citizenship rights since 1948. They have artificially kept the Palestians in a immiserated condition in order to keep waving them around like a bloody shirt. Obama just gave this immoral campaign his full endorsement,
Furthermore, far from moving against Assad, Obama just offered him the Golan heights – in case anyone missed that – as that is whats accords with his formula of pushing Israel back to its 1949-1967 borders.
Your definition of the word ‘democracy’ is substantially different from mine. If by democracy you mean Islamic supremacy, then I agree.
It’s hard to admit, but it’s true: Obama is a stalinist.
I have to agree – despite so many apparent signs along the way, in Obama’s decisions. it’s hard to admit. I always wonder, am I being blinded to something? How could this be – in America? How could our President be leading/pushing our country in a European/socialist/non-sovereign etc., etc. direction? Am I seeing what’s really there, or am I misinterpreting? Because I DON’T like what I see, and I haven’t since the Gitmo closing order was signed on Day One.
Yet it’s still hard to admit.
Not to admit it means that he is inexperienced or not smart enough to know what he is doing.
So either this mess is caused intentionally by our president or it is a mess caused by an inexperienced president.
Either interpretation says that this is not someone we should want to reelect in 2012.
The neocons that advocate nation building/regime change in nondemocratic nations were once frustrated members of the Democratic Party that were sidelined and ignored as crackpots before President Reagan played the Pied Piper and seduced them into jumping ship by joining the Republican Party where they were at least listened to and then saw their dreams come true with the invasion of Iraq by President G. W. Bush.
Is it possible that Obama sees this move as a way to get some or all of the so-called Reagan Democrats to jump ship once again and return to the fold of the Democratic Party thus breaking the Republican alliance between the evangelical Christians, neocons and now the Tea Party that allows them to win elections?
After all, there is a presidential election coming up soon.
It doesn’t matter what he says. He doesn’t believe it.
Obama isn’t in favor of democracy. Look how he has undermined democracy within the US.
Consider his contempt of Congress, which speaks for the people. He has insisted that Congress pass His bills without reading and debating them. Just because he, The Great One, wants them passed. That is a violation of democracy. To get them passed, he uses emotional threats: ‘pass the Stimulus or an apocalpytic economic collapse will occur’..and so on.
This pattern of contempt for democracy within the US is a basic pattern of behavior. His contempt for the Arizona law – which he is fighing – even though the federal govt has the duty to protect the borders and the Arizona rule is merely to move in because the Obama govt is failing its duty.
His waivers for his ObamaCare; his lies about ObamaCare…and so on.
In foreign affairs, Obama ignores democracy. He ignored the Iranian demonstrators; he ignored the Egyptian demonstrations until it became clear that Mubarak would go; he ignored Libya until the UK and France shamed him into participating and even then, he did as little as possible; he’s ignored Syria, Yemen, Bahrain…and so on.
One thing to be very aware of is that Obama’s words are just that. Words. Obama is unconnected to reality. He lives in the realm of words. So, he’ll make a ‘magnificent speech’ about, for example, treating others with respect as he did in Tuscon. And then, a few weeks later, openly and maliciously insult Paul Ryan sitting in front of him…in a situation where Ryan could not rebut or ‘call’ Obama on that shameful act.
Obama does this all the time; he speaks to a specific audience. The agenda is to manipulate and emotively control them. The next hour or day he’ll give a contrary speech to a different audience! And he never, ever, follows through his Words..by Actions.
Again – Obamam lives entirely, completely, within words. Unattached to reality.
Obama is an opportunist. He sides, always, with what he considers ‘the winning power’. And I mean the word ‘power’. Obama isn’t interested in democracy; he’s interested in: Power. Period.
He is not, himself, a democrat, which requires one to engage, openly and treating others as equal, in debate about facts. Obama considers himself superior not equal to others; he refuses equal debates – as he refused to debate equally with the GOP about health care…refusing to allow them to question His answers to the one question they were ‘allowed’. And his comments are always, always, filled with manipulative ‘misinformation’ (aka lies).
Obama is a pathological narcissist, a sociopath, focused only on Himself and power. He has no interest in people and bettering their lives, no ability to engage in a democratic process. Get rid of him.
All the b.s. aside, during President Obama’s time in office the Arab spring has taken place. During President Obama’s time in office Osama bin Laden was removed. During President Obama’s time in office the number of Taliban and alQaeda leaders in Pakistan killed by drone attacks multiplied geometrically. These are the facts.
Hey, Ed:
What are you willing to bet that the so-called ‘Arab Spring” doesn’t, in fact, result in a consolidated radical Islamist middle east? I haven’t worked in a while, and I could use the money. Sell a couple of your unicorns, and make it interesting.
Bin Laden has been killed, you say? Apparently, it took several months + 16 hours for Opie to decide to pull the trigger on him. Gutsy call, that–gutsy.
Yes, our drones have killed Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. Our drones are also killing civilians. We are now fighting on the wrong side of the Libyan war and supporting al Qaeda.
It must be real dark down there.
Puhleeze, do we have to have articles like this at PJM?
The only thing little lenin favors is expanding his own power. Giving credance to a single word the genetic liar has said is right up there with believing in the easter bunny or that he is an american patriot.
His “policy”, such as it is, towards the Middle East is to exploit every event that happens there to distract americans from the deliberate destruction of the US economy. He could care frigging less about what happens to anything or anybdy other than that.
I fear this will lead Middle East leaders to realize that it is dangerous to not have a stockpile of nuclear weapons.
…..Here’s the essence of America’s (…notice the absence of my mentioning “Obama”…this is simply too far beyond him…) MENA problems:
This paste from #3 Aqua ….”…And all the while, the great U.S. had the power to change it for the better…” I disagree, unless #3 Aqua was being satirical. Hard to tell, in these posts/comments.
….”it”, of course meaning Egypt’s role in this Arab revolution, extended to include all of the Middle East/Central Asia cesspool.
Isn’t it time for the dawning of the idea that we Americans simply don’t have the uber-ultra-powers we ascribe to ourselves, or worse, “others” attribute to America. “Others” attribute to America the power to do things which they themselves are unable, collectively or individually, sacrificing their own blood and treasure to accomplish.
The British and our other brave allies have contributed more than ten thousand of their Military branches’ Best to the detriment of their own domestic needs. The same applies to America, with our sacrifice of too many of our Best along with our printing of yet more bales of Dollars is becoming dangerous for our internal health.
Our President Eisenhower said more than half a century ago not to get involved in a land war in Asia. We did, anyway, and look what happened in Viet Nam/Laos. Working westwards in this vast landmass, why, oh why, do we expect these pop-up whack-a-mole revolutions/uprisings/mass demonstrations to be bent to our own expectations? They can’t handle their indiginous uprisings. Why do we outside aliens to Islamic thought processes think that we can accomplish their revolutions for them?
Obama’s, and his staff’s, weaknesses demonstrate this. But, it’s beyond Obama and this Administration.
This deadly cat-herding effort we’re attempting in that vast Arabic/Islamic area is beyond anyone’s “handling” and influence…..is beyond America’s best efforts. Forget the U.N.’s involvement a-la-Korea. We must face this reality and start a strategy of withdrawal and tight containment, similar to that which we applied to the Soviets during that ideological Cold War. Now, we need this strategy to be applied to our new hot ideological war against subversive and active Islamic terrorism, whose planners place no value on human life.
Islamists’ ends justify Islamists’ means, however horrific in our way of thinking.
Check this out ! If this is true, we will be entertained by the White House.
http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-is-harrison-j-bounel-video-042-68.html
Charlie….Start immediately, Post WWII and the moronic idea of a UN. That was the birth of what would become globalization and nation building led by the UN declared four. The rest is history, is it not?
One cannot isolate the blame to any one president or party post WWII, for where the U.S. is today and the worlds circumstances. If I were forced to place blame, I supose I would have to point more towards the traditional constitutionalist GOP, for having failed to standup in opposition…with the constitution in hand!
I heard he’s also a vampire.