Is it in the United States' interests, to ensure that the Suez Canal remain open and viable for international shipping? What about the Straights of Hormuz? In our national interests? If it costs say....$10,000.00 annually to maintain a Turkish soldier, but approximately $100,000.00 to keep and maintain an American soldier, is it in our National interests to supplant and support the Turkish Army, when the Turks are enforcing a number of borders that would be deemed in our national interests? --- we can keep them both open without allowing the animals in the middle to extort our wealth and protection. we don't owe either of them and helping them to kill each other is not in our best interests.
commerce with all ... entangling alliances with none. On Mar 15, 2:39 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Plain Ol'? A question (or two or three) for you: > > Is it in the United States' interests, to ensure that the Suez Canal remain > open and viable for international shipping? > > What about the Straights of Hormuz? In our national interests? > > If it costs say....$10,000.00 annually to maintain a Turkish soldier, but > approximately $100,000.00 to keep and maintain an American soldier, is it > in our National interests to supplant and support the Turkish Army, when > the Turks are enforcing a number of borders that would be deemed in our > national interests? > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- -- 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.
