It is a simple maxim that one should remain silent and allow others to wonder if one is stupid, rather than say something and resolve all doubt. Former Egyptian President Nasser was said to have stated “you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which makes us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.” The Obama Administration has made it clear to the world that our foreign policy is amateurish, naïve, and inept. They have not been clever enough to follow Nasser’s guidance. It is not that the Administration has not had opportunities to do what is right. There have been many opportunities of late.
In Tunis, a dramatic event and social networking made fast work of removing the regime. During the revolution, the Administration did not have time to employ their preferred approach of referring the matter to the United Nations. Instead, a statement was issued praising the courage of the Tunisian people. A bold step for the Administration. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State in a courageous fashion said that we were not taking sides. While not a model of democratic leaders, President Ben Ali was a supporter of the United States in the Middle-East. He was supportive of our efforts to fight terrorism in north Africa. During the demonstrations the President did not have time to engage. He did have time to call the President of Egypt and express his support.
Nonetheless, days later when revolution spread to Egypt, Obama threw Mubarak under the bus and said it was time to go. Now Mubarak ruled his people with an iron hand for 40 years and clearly did not allow the freedoms we have and we suggest to other peoples. However, Mubarak had been our ally throughout his rule of Egypt. He sought a moderate policy in the Middle-East toward the West and, in fact, entered a peace treaty with Israel at our behest. One would think that if our policy was to withdraw support, it might be undertaken through diplomatic channels, not through the press.
As revolutionary movements spread across the Middle-East from Yemen to Bahrain to Jordan, all nations that have provided important support for the U.S., we became aware of a demonstration in Iran. The demonstration continued the fight over the corrupt election of the President in 2009 and fed on the revolutionary activities in the region. What would be our policy? Would we support those seeking a regime change in Iran as we did in Egypt with daily statements from the Administration? Or would we respond as we did following the 2009 elections in Iran. In 2009, did we support those seeking regime change and greater freedom? No we did not! The Administration said they did not want to become involved in the internal politics of another nation.
Apparently, in dealing with three of our allies, the Administration took the lead from Ahmadinejad. Despite the harsh treatment of Iranian protesters, Ahmadinejad encouraged the revolutions in the various Arab states. Perhaps Obama assumed that if criticizing another government is acceptable to Ahmadinejad, it should be acceptable for him to do the same.
While the response of the Administration was weak, it least it was consistent. How did we treat Bahrain, the home of the U.S. 5th Fleet and a long time friend? How about Jordan who at our request has participated in peace efforts with Israel, and has supported all of our efforts in the Middle East? What about Yemen which is seeking to fight the Al Qaeda in this southern Arabian nation which has become a major center of terrorist coordination? What would you expect? For Bahrain, the Administration took the strong step of urging restraint. With Jordan, the Administration assured continued support while urging reforms. This was the response to King Abdullah’s understandable anxiety over the treatment of other allies in the region. If you led Bahrain and Jordon, how would you value the assurances from Washington? With Yemen, he returned to his weak support of the protesters. The Administration said it condemned the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters.
But now we had potential revolution in Libya. One would think that Libya would qualify for treatment substantially different than that visited upon our friends in the region. Here was a rogue nation. Libya was and is a known supporter of terrorism. It is clear that Gaddafi was personally responsible for the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 which crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland as well as a number of bombings in Europe. Libya had an active nuclear program which Gaddafi gave up only after he saw what the U.S. did in Iraq. If there is a bad actor in the region, Gaddafi wins the prize. So certainly our response to the inhumane treatment of the protesters must be severe. Well, imagine my surprise! His response was that he condemned the use of violence by governments against peaceful demonstrations in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen. He urged that the three countries respect the rights of their people. He did not seem to draw any distinctions among the three countries. Well so much for being a friend of the U.S.
As time has gone on, the Administration has proposed “new and effective” means of dealing with Libya’s ruthless dictator. His sanction was to seizing assets of Gaddafi in the United States because “he has violated international norms and common decency and must be responsible.” Obama supported the U.N. arms embargo which seemed to be equally applicable to the opposition force and the Gaddafi regime. The U.N. also referred the matter to the International Criminal Court. Later it was announced that the U.S. and NATO are considering military action, though none has been taken. Instead, the Administration decided to provide humanitarian assistance. While the Director of National Intelligence, James Crapper, is telling a Senate Committee that Gaddafi will prevail, the Administration is assuring that will be the case. The opposition is getting killed. They have no command and control capability, they have no air support and have no means of effectively using the limited weapons they have. They cannot fight tanks on the ground and air force fighters in the air. What they need is a “no-fly” zone. Acting in their characteristically speedy fashion, the U.S. and NATO referred the matter to the United Nations Security Council, a wholly ineffective body. It is assumed that Russia and China will veto any attempt to establish a “no-fly” zone, so what is the point.
At the same time there is leadership from other quarters. France was one of the first to recognize the opposition while the Administration was still trying to find out who they are. The Arab League called for a “no-fly” zone and the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council announced they would undertake contact and support of the opposition. Yes, even the Arab nations recognized which side should prevail. France even called for a no-fly zone. Still no assistance from the U.S.
If we wait, the fate of the opposition is doomed and unspeakable punishment will face those who participated in the attempted revolution. The U.S. and willing allies must take the matter to themselves and provide needed assistance to the opposition. The Administration is concerned about possible losses in pursuing military options with air power. They are concerned about Libyan command and control and anti-aircraft capability. They are concerned about putting our air forces against theirs. Can they be serious? President Reagan did not fear these capabilities when he committed to an airstrike against Libya during his term. Taking out anti-aircraft missile sites, command and control sites and the entire Libyan air force probably would not be much of a challenge for one F-22. What are we waiting for? There are even less intrusive options which would not require that our airplanes enter Libyan air space. Perhaps a bit less effective but certainly more than the international community is prepared to undertake today. Support for intervention is bipartisan. Senator John Kerry said: “This is not a big air force. It’s not an enormously complicated defense system.”
It is no longer a question of whether the Administration’s foreign policy is inept. They have made it clear. If Gaddafi prevails, the credibility of our foreign policy will hit new lows, even for this Administration.
But worse, our security will be in peril. If Gaddafi succeeds, his first action will be to severely punish those who participated or may have participated in the attempted revolution. Shortly thereafter, Gaddafi will consider his enemies. First, he will provide safe haven to terrorist organizations. Training facilities will be constructed, similar to those that existed in Libya in earlier years. Officials of Al Qaida will be invited to leave the caves of Pakistan and live in comfort with offices and hotels in Libya. Second, he will reinstate his nuclear weapon program, working with Iran and North Korea. There is no question that nuclear devises will find their way into the hands of terrorists. Third, he will take up the task of involving himself in terror. We have seen what he is capable of us with Pan Am Flight 103.
The world would be better without Gaddafi and will be substantially more dangerous with him in power in Libya. The Administration should learn that doing nothing is an action and all actions have consequences. I fear the consequences of the inaction in the Middle-East.
http://www.WeThePeopleBlog.net
Comments: comments@wethepeopleblog.net
