Obama Ignores Lessons of Iran in his Egypt Policy
When I see what has happened in Egypt in the last few weeks I am concerned that the Obama administration is repeating the mistake of the Carter Administration 30 years ago. In response to what present themselves as several weeks of democratic protest in Iran Carter quickly vacated support for the Shah, with little regard for influencing what would come next. Those who eventually took power were those who were the most organized and oppressive. Now Iran has devolved into a caliphate. I am afraid Egypt is heading down the same road. The Obama administration faltered when discontent arose in Egypt. The Secretary of State announced that the government in Egypt was "stable." For the first two weeks Obama said nothing, he was reactive,waiting to see how the cards were going to fall before making a statement. When it became obvious that Mubarak had lost support of the people and the Army Obama came out and said "Mubarak" must go now. He reacted rather than lead. The future remains uncertain:
Originally heralded as a democratic protest it is now becoming clear that the strongest forces in this protest are far from being lovers of democracy. Did you noticed that their were only a handful of women in the protest? Over 100 American media members encountered violence. Fox reporters were held hostage. CBS correspondent Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted, while protesters cheered "Jew, Jew." This is not what usually happens in democratic protests. When Eastern Europeans sought to cast off communist leaders in the protest did everything they could to allow the free operation of the press. They understood that a free press would eventually lead to the truth about the motives of the protesters coming out and the support of free people. Those who held the power in the Egyptian protest seemed to want to keep truth hidden about who was in charge.
For now the military seems to have calmed some of the protest and are saying they will guarantee free elections: at the point of a gun. We will see. What could Obama have done. This was an opportunity for the President to assert the strength of Freedom. First he needs to be consistent in his call for freedom. His support of democracy in Egypt while ignoring and abandoning freedom fighters in Iran makes Obamas statement look disingenuously motivated by expedience. As usually happen in s these situations where the Press is controlled and information not released is might often triumphs over right before anyone knows who is in control. It appears the Muslim brotherhood is beginning to arise as the predominant force in the country.
I am amazed when I hear people like Catie Couric speculate about what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for. We know what they stand for: Formed in 1920 they were formed so that the flag of Islam would fly over every nation and that Sharia law would be dominant world wie3 . They were behind the assassination of Egypt's president Nassar and Sadat and practice torture and persecution of Christians in Egypt today. They are belligerently anti-Israel, and say nothing when a crowd of men beat and rape a woman reporter. They have no respect for the rights of women. They are the organization that gave birth to both Al Quad and Hezbollah. There is no doubt that if they have a major role in Egypts government, the region will be stabilized and will be a threat to democracy every where. But what could the President have done?
Form the moment the protest began it was obvious that Mubarak days were numbered. Despite the fact that he was far from a libertarian, Mubarak kept the Camp David accord, peace in the region for 3 decades. There was no need to disgrace and disparage him. The President has no control what happens in Egypt, but we do exercise influence through our military and social aid. Disparaging Mubarak left many similar leaders in the region questioning whether the US could be relied upon for support and will spread instability throughout the region
From the moment prostest began in Egypt (or anywhere else in the middle east) the President should publicly state our commitment to liberty and remind the people of the world that the United States has been the strongest defender of liberty in the Moslem world. We went to war in Bosnia against Christians committing genocide of Moslems. We have liberated millions of Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of demanding publicly that leaders who have helped us resign. The president should encourage them to follow the will of their people, while privately telling them they must leave. The problem with telling someone like Mubarak they must go now is that you take someone who has spent 30 years defending us and make him feel betrayed. This leaves allies in other nations wondering whether they can depend on our support. Privately he should be told Mubarak to go, and even arrange his departure and exile if need be. Publicly disparaging him accomplished nothing.
Second the President needs to assert unequivocal support for Israel. He should make it very clear that we will not abandon Israel. What Obama has done has created uncertainty about Americas commitment to Israel. This will cause destabilization to spread and forces that seek to destroy Israel to consolidate.
I hope I am wrong but I believe Obama's rather passive, mixed message will lead to an even more insecure Middle East. By the time of the 2012 election it will be obvious that Egypt is no longer a dependable ally of the United State. After all what reason do they have to support us. Absolutely non
Originally heralded as a democratic protest it is now becoming clear that the strongest forces in this protest are far from being lovers of democracy. Did you noticed that their were only a handful of women in the protest? Over 100 American media members encountered violence. Fox reporters were held hostage. CBS correspondent Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted, while protesters cheered "Jew, Jew." This is not what usually happens in democratic protests. When Eastern Europeans sought to cast off communist leaders in the protest did everything they could to allow the free operation of the press. They understood that a free press would eventually lead to the truth about the motives of the protesters coming out and the support of free people. Those who held the power in the Egyptian protest seemed to want to keep truth hidden about who was in charge.
For now the military seems to have calmed some of the protest and are saying they will guarantee free elections: at the point of a gun. We will see. What could Obama have done. This was an opportunity for the President to assert the strength of Freedom. First he needs to be consistent in his call for freedom. His support of democracy in Egypt while ignoring and abandoning freedom fighters in Iran makes Obamas statement look disingenuously motivated by expedience. As usually happen in s these situations where the Press is controlled and information not released is might often triumphs over right before anyone knows who is in control. It appears the Muslim brotherhood is beginning to arise as the predominant force in the country.
I am amazed when I hear people like Catie Couric speculate about what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for. We know what they stand for: Formed in 1920 they were formed so that the flag of Islam would fly over every nation and that Sharia law would be dominant world wie3 . They were behind the assassination of Egypt's president Nassar and Sadat and practice torture and persecution of Christians in Egypt today. They are belligerently anti-Israel, and say nothing when a crowd of men beat and rape a woman reporter. They have no respect for the rights of women. They are the organization that gave birth to both Al Quad and Hezbollah. There is no doubt that if they have a major role in Egypts government, the region will be stabilized and will be a threat to democracy every where. But what could the President have done?
Form the moment the protest began it was obvious that Mubarak days were numbered. Despite the fact that he was far from a libertarian, Mubarak kept the Camp David accord, peace in the region for 3 decades. There was no need to disgrace and disparage him. The President has no control what happens in Egypt, but we do exercise influence through our military and social aid. Disparaging Mubarak left many similar leaders in the region questioning whether the US could be relied upon for support and will spread instability throughout the region
From the moment prostest began in Egypt (or anywhere else in the middle east) the President should publicly state our commitment to liberty and remind the people of the world that the United States has been the strongest defender of liberty in the Moslem world. We went to war in Bosnia against Christians committing genocide of Moslems. We have liberated millions of Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of demanding publicly that leaders who have helped us resign. The president should encourage them to follow the will of their people, while privately telling them they must leave. The problem with telling someone like Mubarak they must go now is that you take someone who has spent 30 years defending us and make him feel betrayed. This leaves allies in other nations wondering whether they can depend on our support. Privately he should be told Mubarak to go, and even arrange his departure and exile if need be. Publicly disparaging him accomplished nothing.
Second the President needs to assert unequivocal support for Israel. He should make it very clear that we will not abandon Israel. What Obama has done has created uncertainty about Americas commitment to Israel. This will cause destabilization to spread and forces that seek to destroy Israel to consolidate.
I hope I am wrong but I believe Obama's rather passive, mixed message will lead to an even more insecure Middle East. By the time of the 2012 election it will be obvious that Egypt is no longer a dependable ally of the United State. After all what reason do they have to support us. Absolutely non
Comments
Post a Comment