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.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well it's about time.

[scotty]

It is a shakey situation. If we want to call for his ouster and aid in food then fine. But many are calling for us to help the rebellion with arms. I don't think this is a good idea. This bullet has already come back to bite us. We helped the Afgans oust Russia, now they are using our arms against us. We gave arms support to Lebanon to hold off Humas, now Humas controls the military.

I agree he needs to do something, just not sure what.

[Dedicated Mind]

If Obama did more, deacon would criticize him for that and would say let them fight their own battles. We don't need American interventionism and policeman of the world.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

If Obama did more, deacon would criticize him for that and would say let them fight their own battles. We don't need American interventionism and policeman of the world.

Well said.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

If Obama did more, deacon would criticize him for that and would say let them fight their own battles. We don't need American interventionism and policeman of the world.

It's a tough call here.
I am tired of us acting as the world's policeman.
We just engender ill-will when we try to "help".
On the other hand if the French had not helped us, we might still be under the British.

[Twisp]

Perhaps President Obama should have tried deacon blues mid east strategy:

"Democracy for all..that American approves of and allows."

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Well it's about time.

I've noticed you tend to be anti-Israel. What's your beef?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by scotty

It is a shakey situation. If we want to call for his ouster and aid in food then fine. But many are calling for us to help the rebellion with arms. I don't think this is a good idea. This bullet has already come back to bite us. We helped the Afgans oust Russia, now they are using our arms against us. We gave arms support to Lebanon to hold off Humas, now Humas controls the military.

I agree he needs to do something, just not sure what.

I don't think it merits arms supplies. I'm just saying that BO sends the wrong signals to our friends in the region (i.e. allies like Mubarak) by not standing with them when in trouble, and sending the wrong message to our enemies (i.e. like Gadhafi) by acting fearful of speaking boldly to their barbarism.

Jimmy Carter was slow and tepid with the Islamic revolution in Iran. His continued ineptness with the radicals running Iran emboldened them to keep pushing the envelope. It is no coincedence that the day Reagan was inaugerated Iran released the hostages. They knew Reagan was a different kind of leader and would be more forceful with them. These people don't respect diplomacy, compromise or weak responses. They only respect toughness, courage and power. When European leaders speak and act more forcefully with Libya than we do, we are abdicating our position of strength to others.

It isn't surprising coming from leftists, its just baffling why lefties don't learn from history. You have to stand against evil with strength and courage, never with timidity and fear. And certainly not worrying about what other nations "think" of you. Do what's right and let the chips fall where they may.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I've noticed you tend to be anti-Israel. What's your beef?

One doesn't have to be anti-Israel to think that we should stay out of all of that mess over there.

I am not anti-Israel.