 |
| Obama circa 2009 in Cairo, surrounded by flowers |
Washington's Weakened Middle East Influence -Lee Smith
Perhaps our eagerness to see the upheavals as one wider movement is less a representation of reality than a reflection of how the Middle East is [wrongly] understood by large segments of the American intelligentsia—a habit of mind that of late was most powerfully expressed by President Barack Obama [in his] 2009 Cairo speech.
Obama describ[ed] the region in terms of Muslims, a Muslim world that is by definition borderless, transnational, and not specific to the particular circumstances of history, geography, and politics that give nation-states their character. Obama's Muslim world is amorphous, more like a sentiment than a physical fact, something perhaps similar in nature to the "Arab Spring." The onetime, popular notion that all these opposition groups are united in their calls for democracy is starting to fade in light of the evidence.
[But] the various and often conflicting narratives surrounding events seem to suggest that the "Arab Spring" is a misnomer. The belief that there is some deeper trend underlying the recent wave of political upheaval in the region, something uniquely Arab tying them all together, is [similar to] the discredited pan-Arab notion that the three hundred million inhabitants of the Arabic-speaking Middle East constitute a unified Arab nation.
In effect, the "Arab Spring" is a series of civil wars, sectarian and tribal conflicts.
The U.S. position in the region, an area of vital interest since the end of World War II, has been weakened. The erosion has taken place gradually over time and is a factor of many forces not attributable to any single episode or administration, but one can nonetheless identify a defining moment—Obama's Cairo speech.
The main flaw with Obama's Cairo speech is not simply that it contravenes the norms of political and diplomatic practice or that the belief in the existence of a unified Muslim world ignores the reality of 1,400 years of Muslim sectarianism; nor is it that the leader of a secular republic should avoid categorizing the world's inhabitants by their religious beliefs. No, the biggest problem is that Obama played into the strategic communications campaign of Washington's chief regional adversary, the Islamic Republic of Iran. For it is Tehran that insists that for all their divisions, there truly is one factor uniting all the world's Muslims: resistance to the United States and its regional allies.
[B]y describing the region as an amorphous body of believers, Obama strayed into a minefield without a map—or no map other than the one that confirmed the Iranian view of the Middle East.
So far, all Washington has reaped from the uprisings in the Middle East, the "Arab Spring," is the whirlwind.
[Middle East Quarterly]
*
5 comments:
Obama tried a bit different strategy, one that I think was flawed, and in the end his mid east ideas and strategies have been no more or less effective than any one else. I do not believe he will have a lasting impact nor do I believe he will have a particularly damaging effect on Israel, unlike the previous administration that failed to reign in Taliban terrorists, destabilized Iraq and empowered Iran.
Bush's biggest mistake was not to take out Iran, instead going for Iraq. Obama is repeating that mistake: ignoring the Iranian threat.
Here is why Obama is dangerous;
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=226157
"According to the official, the concern was that the EU is pushing for the adoption of US President Barack Obama’s formula of restarting negotiations using the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps as a baseline, but without pressing the Palestinians to elaborate on security arrangements of any future accord with Israel."
It would be unfortunate if the UN used ideas like this to help thwart the statehood bid that they don't want to see put forward. I do understand your concern. I agree that all along Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq but I don;t think Bush could have made a case for Iran at the time. He should have invaded Afghanistan with everything we had and completed the job. Such a show would have cowed Iran, which was also held in check by Iraq, and possibly forced Hussein into some concessions for his people as the Arab leaders have been trying to do since the uprisings began. Afghanistan was a war that had to be, and a convincing and decisive victory there could have accomplished more with Iraq and Iran than our actual battles have managed.
I like your formulation that we:
"should have invaded Afghanistan with everything we had and completed the job. Such a show would have cowed Iran..."
Quite right.
Post a Comment