Obama Mid East Strategy Lacks Courage & Direction

[deacon blues]

This presidency has floundered with the Mid East from Day One. For the first time in our history, we have gone on record at the UN to say that we are opposed to Israeli settlements in disputed areas. We vetoed the Security Council's condemnation of the settlements as "illegal" but we did state that we did not agree with them. Never have we stated it that way before on the record.

Obama was flatfooted on the Iranian protests in 2009. He was caught off guard by the Tunisian protests. Blindsided by the Egyptian crisis.

As things in Lybia descended State Dept spokesman PJ Crowley was asked if Gadhafi was a dictator. Crowley froze like a raccon caught plundering a box of Fruit Loops on your kitchen counter. The reporter asked, "Are you stumped...what's your answer...?" Crowley managed a weak response: "I don't think he came to office through a democratic process." Was it really that hard to assess a man who had been ruling Libya with a bloody rein for 42 years?

Last Tuesday Gadhafi announced he was willing to turn his military's jets and helicopters on unarmed protesters. That evening Obama released a statement after a day of photo ops in Ohio. The statement offered condolensces to the victims of the earthquake in New Zealand. Nothing about Libya. Obama had demanded the ouster of Mubarak, a trusted ally, but couldn't find a voice of warning to Gadhafi?

The next day Obama condemned the violence in Libya wothout identifying Gadahfi by name. He mentioned "the world is watching". Watching, but doimg little. That's what bloodthirsty dictators like.

Gadhafi's son gave an interview on Libyan TV warning the country would be drenched in blood and that his family would fight to the last bullet. A US official responded "We are analyzing the speech...to see what possibilities it contains for meaningful reform." What the heck? Maybe OJ could hire these guys to find the real killers of Nicole.

The BO admin insisted it wasn't being slow, but prudent, because of Americans in the country who could be held hostage. An explanation or a rationalization? There were more Americans in Egypt during the upheaval there and no one in the White House acted concerned. There were thousands of Europeans in Libya and their leaders came out with stronger and swifter condemnations than from BO.

What's worse it seemed that the US was more eager to oust a 30-year ally than do the same to a 40-year enemy whose cruelty dwarfed anything we saw from Mubarak. So we're going to be tough on our friends and conciliatory toward our enemies? The Mid East policy here is indecipherable.

Also odd is Obama's regard for the power of his own rhetoric. You'd think he would be looking for ways to take credit for and guide the forces of reform in the region. Instead, he looks defensive waiting for things to happen and then reacting after way too much political calculating.

They have stepped it up since the "ferry" came and picked up our citizens (other countries sent warships and military planes). Finally the admin has called for MG's ouster.

But now we have oil prices rising and calls for a "no fly zone" with no military assets in the area.

Where is the courage we expect from American presidents as well as the world, friends and foes, and what is the vision for the Middle East?

We can either help shape the future of the ME or we can watch Islamists and dangerous enemies take control. Ignoring the problem will only ensure that it will come knocking on our shores once again like another 9/11. Clinton ignored the real threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda throughout his two terms and we paid a dear price. If we ignore the threat of radical Islam and its goals for the Middle East and the world, we will do so at our peril.