The Secret Document That Set Obama's Middle East Policy --- AIPAC sets US middle east policy.
On Mar 14, 8:06 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > *The Secret Document That Set Obama’s Middle East Policy* > > Posted By *Barry Rubin* On March 14, 2013 **** > > “We have to confront violent extremism in all of its forms.… America is not > — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly > confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — > because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the > killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as > president to protect the American people.” –President Barack Obama, Cairo, > June 2009**** > > “The United States is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is > heading towards its demise….Resistance is the only solution. [Today the > United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is > also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, > missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the > peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance.” –Muslim > Brotherhood leader Muhammad al-Badi, Cairo, September 2010**** > > What did the president know and when did he know it? That’s a question made > classical by the Watergate scandal. Now it is possible to trace precisely > what Obama knew and when he knew it. And it proves that the installment of > the Muslim Brotherhood in power was a conscious and deliberate strategy of > the Obama Administration developed before the “Arab Spring” began.**** > > In February 2011 the *New York Times* ran an extremely complimentary > article on President Obama by Mark > Landler<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17diplomacy.html>, > who some observers say is the biggest apologist for Obama on the newspaper. > That’s quite an achievement. Landler praised Obama for having tremendous > foresight, in effect, predicting the “Arab Spring.” According to Landler, ** > ** > > “President Obama ordered his advisers last August [2010] to produce a > secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that without > sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for > popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday.” **** > > Which advisors? The then counter-terrorism advisor and now designated CIA > chief, John Brennan? National Security Council senior staffer Samantha > Power? If it was done by Obama’s own staff, rather than State and Defense, > it’s likely that these people or at least one of them was the key author. ** > ** > > So should U.S. policy help allies avoid such sweeping change by standing > firm or by helping them make adjustments? No, explained the report, it > should get on the side of history and wield a broom to do the sweeping. The > article continued:**** > > “Mr. Obama’s order, known as a Presidential Study Directive, identified > likely flashpoints, most notably Egypt, and solicited proposals for *how > the administration could push for political change in countries with > autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United States*, > [emphasis added] these officials said.**** > > “The 18-page classified report, they said, grapples with a problem that has > bedeviled the White House’s approach toward Egypt and other countries in > recent days: how to balance American strategic interests and the desire to > avert broader instability against the democratic demands of the protesters.” > **** > > As I noted, the article was quite explicitly complimentary (and that’s an > understatement) about how Obama knew what was likely to happen and was well > prepared for it.**** > > But that’s precisely the problem. It wasn’t trying to deal with change but > was pushing for it; it wasn’t asserting U.S. interests but balancing them > off against other factors. In the process, U.S. interests were forgotten.*** > * > > If Landler was right then Obama did have a sense of what was going to > happen and prepared for it. It cannot be said that he was caught unawares. > This view would suggest, then, that he thought American strategic interests > could be protected and broader instability avoided by overthrowing U.S. > allies as fast as possible and by showing the oppositions that he was on > their side. Presumably the paper pointed out the strength of Islamist > forces and the Muslim Brotherhood factor and then discounted any dangers > from this quarter. One could have imagined how other U.S. governments would > have dealt with this situation. Here is my *imagined* passage from a > high-level government document:**** > > *In light of the likelihood of sweeping political changes, with countries > from Bahrain to Yemen ripe for popular revolt, U.S. policy should either > help friendly governments retain control or encourage them to make reforms > that would increase the scope of freedom in a way that would satisfy > popular desires without endangering U.S. interests and long-term stability. > In the event that the fall of any given regime seemed likely, U.S. policy > should work both publicly and behind the scenes to try to ensure the > triumph of moderate, pro-democratic forces that would be able to prevent > the formation of radical Islamist dictatorships inimical to U.S. interests, > regional peace, and the well-being of the local population.* [Note: that is > my reconstruction and NOT a quote from the document]**** > > Such an approach would have been easy and in line with historic U.S. > policy. We have every reason to believe that the State Department and the > Defense Department favored such an approach.**** > > But let’s look at precisely how the White House described the U.S. policy > it wanted:**** > > “…how the administration could push for political change in countries with > autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United States,”**** > > In other words, a popular revolt was going to happen (I’ve seen the cables > from the U.S. embassy in Tunisia that accurately predicted an upheaval) but > would it succeed or fail? The Obama Administration concluded that the > revolt should succeed and set out to help make sure that it did so. As for > who won, it favored not just moderate Islamic forces–which hardly existed > as such–but moderate Islamist forces, which didn’t exist at all.**** > > Anyone who says that the United States did not have a lot of influence in > these crises doesn’t know what they are talking about. Of course, the U.S. > government didn’t control the outcome, its leverage was limited. But > there’s a big difference between telling the Egyptian army to stay in > control, dump Mubarak, and make a mild transition—and we, the United > States, will back you—or telling them that Washington wanted the generals > to stand aside, let Mubarak be overthrown, and have a thoroughgoing regime > change, a fundamental transformation, to coin a phrase.**** > > So the Obama Administration did not stand beside friendly regimes or help > to manage a limited transition with more democracy and reforms. No, it > actively pushed to bring down at least four governments—Bahrain, Egypt, > Tunisia, and Yemen.**** > > It did not push for the overthrow of two anti-American regimes—Iran and > Syria—but on the contrary was still striving for good relations with those > two dictatorships. Equally, it did not push for the fall of radical > anti-American governments in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. No, it only pushed > for the fall of “valuable allies.” There was no increase in support for > dissidents in Iran despite, as we will see in a moment, internal > administration predictions of unrest there, too. As for Syria, strong > administration support for the dictatorship there continued for months > until it was clear that the regime was in serious trouble. It seems > reasonable to say that the paper did not predict the Syrian civil war.**** > > Want more evidence about the internal administration document? Here’s another > article<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-pr...>from > the time which explains: > **** > > “The White House had been debating the likelihood of a domino effect since > youth-driven revolts had toppled President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in > Tunisia, even though the American intelligence community and Israel’s > intelligence services had estimated that the risk to President Mubarak was > low — less than 20 percent, some officials said. **** > > “According to senior officials who participated in Mr. Obama’s policy > debates, the president took a different view. He made the point early on, a > senior official said, that `this was a trend’ that could spread to other > authoritarian governments in the region, including in Iran. By the end of > the 18-day uprising, by a White House count, there were 38 meetings with > the president about Egypt. Mr. Obama said that this was a chance to create > an alternative to “the Al Qaeda narrative” of Western interference.”**** > > Notice that while this suggests the debate began after the unrest started, > full credit is given to Obama personally, not to U.S. intelligence > agencies, for grasping the truth. This is like the appropriation by the > White House of all the credit for getting Usama bin Ladin, sort of a cult > of personality thing. We know for a fact that the State Department > predicted significant problems arising in Tunisia (from the Wikileaks > documents) and perhaps that is true for other countries as well. But if > Obama wants to take personal credit for the new U.S. policy that means he > also has to take personal blame for the damage it does.**** > > Now I assume what I’m about to say isn’t going to be too popular but I’ll > also bet that history will prove it correct: The revolution in Egypt was > not inevitable and Obama’s position was a self-fulfilling prophecy. And > judging from what happened at the time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton > agrees with me. The idea of an “alternative to `the al-Qaida narrative”‘of > Western interference is straight Brennan. What Obama was really saying was: > Ha! So al-Qaida claims we interfere to put reactionary pro-Western > dictators in power just because they’re siding with us? We’ll show them > that we can put popular Islamist dictators in power even though they are > against us!**** > > If I’m writing this somewhat facetiously I mean it very seriously. **** > > And here’s more > proof<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR201...>from > the > *Washington Post* in March 2011 which seems to report on the implementation > of the White House paper’s recommendations:**** > > “The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various > movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal > assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large > ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in > Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.” That > says it all, doesn’t it? The implication is that the U.S. government knew > that the Brotherhood would take power and thought this was a good thing.**** > > It continued:**** > > “`If our policy can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim > Brotherhood, we won’t be able to adapt to this change,’” the senior > administration official said. “`We’re also not going to allow ourselves to > be driven by fear.”‘**** > > Might that be then counterterrorism advisor and now CIA director John > Brennan? I’d bet on it.**** > > What did Obama and his advisors think would happen? Why that out of > gratitude for America stopping its (alleged) bullying and imperialistic > ways and getting on the (alleged) side of history the new regimes would be > friendly. The Muslim Brotherhood in particular would conclude that America > was not its enemy. You know, one Brotherhood leader would supposedly say to > another, all of these years we thought the United States was against us but > now we see that they are really our friends. Remember Obama’s Cairo speech? > He really gets us!**** > > More likely he’d be saying: We don’t understand precisely what the > Americans are up to but they are obviously weak, cowardly, and in decline! > In fact, that’s what they did say. Remember that President Jimmy Carter’s > attempts to make friends with the new Islamist regime in Iran in 1979 fed a > combination of Iranian suspicion and arrogance which led to the hostage > crisis and Tehran daring to take on the United States single-handed. > America, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at the time, can’t do a damned thing > against us.**** > > Incidentally, everyone except the American public—which means people in the > Middle East—knows that Obama cut the funding for real democratic groups. > His Cairo speech was important not for the points so often discussed > (Israel, for example) but because it heralded the age of political Islamism > being dominant in the region. Indeed, Obama practically told those people > that they should identify not as Arabs but as Muslims.**** > > In broader terms, what does Obama’s behavior remind me of? President Jimmy > Carter pushing Iran’s shah for human rights and other reforms in 1977 and > then standing aloof as the revolution unrolled—and went increasingly in the > direction of radical Islamists—in 1978.**** > > As noted above, that didn’t work out too well.**** > > Incidentally, the State Department quite visibly did not support Obama’s > policy in 2011. It wanted to stand with its traditional clients in the > threatened Arab governments, just as presumably there were many in the > Defense Department who wanted to help the imperiled militaries with whom > they had cooperated for years. And that, by the way, includes the Turkish > army which was being visibly dismantled by the Islamist regime in Ankara.*** > * > > While the State Department backed down on Egypt it drew the line on > Bahrain. Yes, there is a very unfair system there in which a small Sunni > minority dominates a large Shia majority and yes, too, some of the Shia > opposition is moderate but the assessment was that a revolution would > probably bring to power an Iranian satellite government. **** > > But the idea that they’re going to be overthrown any way so let’s give them > a push did not apply to Iran or Syria or Hamas-government Gaza or > Hizballah-governed Lebanon and not at all to Islamist-governed Turkey.**** > > It makes sense that this basic thinking also applied to Libya, where > dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi was hardly a friend of the United States but > had been on better behavior lately. As for Syria, the U.S. government > indifference to who actually wins leadership of the new regime seems to > carry over from the earlier crises.**** > > Credit should be given to the U.S. government in two specific cases. Once > the decision to overthrow Qadhafi was made, the result was a relatively > favorable regime in Libya. That was a gain. The problem is that this same > philosophy and the fragility of the regime helped produce the Benghazi > incident. The other relatively positive situation was Iraq’s post-Saddam > government, to which most of the credit goes to Obama’s predecessor but > some to his administration. Still, Iraq seems to be sliding–in terms of its > regional strategic stance, not domestically–closer toward Iran.**** > > At any rate, the evidence both public and behind the scenes seems to > indicate that the Obama Administration decided on two principles in early > 2011.**** > > First, let’s help overthrow our friends before someone else does so and > somehow we will benefit from being on the right side.**** > > Second, it doesn’t really matter too much who takes power because somehow > they will be better than their predecessors, somehow we will be more > popular with them, and somehow U.S. interests will be preserved.**** > > Landler definitely thought he was making Obama look good. Instead, I think, > he was really showing us that the bad thinking and disastrous policy was > planned and purposeful.**** > ------------------------------ > > Article printed from Rubin Reports: *http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin***** > > URL to article: > *http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/03/14/the-secret-document-that-set... > ***** > > ** ** -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
