America lost most in 'Arab Spring' -Caroline Glick
To understand the depth and breadth of America's losses, consider that on January 25, 2011, most
Arab states were US allies to a greater or lesser degree. Mubarak was a strategic ally. [Yemen's] Saleh was willing to collaborate with the US in combating al- Qaida and other jihadist forces in his country. Gaddafi was a neutered former enemy who had posed no threat to the US since 2004. Iraq was a protectorate. Jordan and Morocco were stable US clients.
One year later, the elements of the US's alliance structure have either been destroyed or seriously weakened. US allies like Saudi Arabia, which have yet to be seriously threatened by the revolutionary violence, no longer trust the US. As the recently revealed nuclear cooperation between the Saudis and the Chinese makes clear, the Saudis are looking to other global powers to replace the US as their superpower protector.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect to the US's spectacular loss of influence and power in the Arab world is that most of its strategic collapse has been due to its own actions. In Egypt and Libya the US intervened prominently to bring down a US ally and a dictator who constituted no threat to its interests. Indeed, it went to war to bring Gaddafi down.
Moreover, the US acted to bring about their fall at the same time it knew that they would be replaced by forces inimical to American national security interests. In Egypt, it was clear that the Muslim Brotherhood would emerge as the strongest political force in the country. In Libya, it was clear at the outset of the NATO campaign against Gaddafi that al-Qaida was prominently represented in the antiregime coalition. And shortly after Gaddafi was overthrown, al-Qaida forces raised their flag over Benghazi's courthouse.
US actions from Yemen to Bahrain and beyond have followed a similar pattern.
In sharp contrast to his active interventionism against US-allied regimes, President Barack Obama has prominently refused to intervene in Syria, where the fate of a US foe hangs in the balance.
Obama has sat back as Turkey has fashioned a Syrian opposition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab League has intervened in a manner that increases the prospect that Syria will descend into chaos in the event that the Assad regime is overthrown.
Obama continues to speak grandly about his vision for the Middle East and his dedication to America's regional allies. And his supporters in the media continue to applaud his great success in foreign policy. But outside of their echo chamber, he and the country he leads are looked upon with increasing contempt and disgust throughout the Arab world.
Obama's behavior since last January 25 has made clear to US friend and foe alike that under Obama, the US is more likely to attack you if you display weakness towards it than if you adopt a confrontational posture against it. As Assad survives to kill another day; as Iran expands its spheres of influence and gallops towards the nuclear bomb; as al- Qaida and its allies rise from the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal; and as Mubarak continues to be wheeled into the courtroom on a stretcher, the US's rapid fall from regional power is everywhere in evidence.
[Jewish World Review]
*
2 comments:
America did not foment the Arab Spring. America did not take Qaddafi down alone, nor was it in the lead at the time of is demise. America saw the tide and wisely stepped in to show the Arab world it will help support freedom, democracy and the safety of citizenry but expects that whatever government is formed is respectful of that and has peaceful intentions. We do not know otherwise yet. America has shown that the same firepower that fell Iraq, is threatening Iran and that took out thousands of Al-Qaeda as well as Osama bin Laden can be used to free a populace---along with the implicit message that we can and will intervene in the MidEast---we can help liberate you today---but we can be back tomorrow if need be to 'clean up'. We could have stood back and allowed civilians to be murdered, things to drag on, a bloody coup to finally take place and the populace to view us as supportive of the dictators now out of power. That is how Iran saw us. We did not empower the Iranian revolution but we spurred it on to be anti-American. The MidEast is a mess. It has been for a very long time. Nothing America has tried in the past has worked particularly well. It remains to be seen what the future holds. As for Syria, China, Russia, the other Arab states and Iran have all voiced objections as well as the opposition forces, whenever things look to be going well also say they are not looking for NATO intervention--yet anyway. Syria is not done in any direction yet. We 'liberated' Iraq and it has befriended Iran and leans toward Islamists. The current crop of pundits do not understand the MidEast at all. Scholars studying it for years, however, predicted the mess we made out of Iraq. Whether many like it or not, we do not hold sway over the MidEast nor do we decide what is good for the rest of the world. Obama is merely trying to engage where predecessors alienated. Will it work? No one can say with certainty yet.
Obama is trying to engage? Is that why, as President, he visited Cairo but not Jerusalem?
Taking out Gaddafi was a serious mistake, whether he did it alone or with other imbeciles. Libya is insignificant on the world stage. What a waste. Obama is a joiner, not a leader. The Europeans had a score to settle with Gaddafi and Obama followed.
B
Post a Comment