June 27, 2012
Is the question 'What hath 'Cairo' wrought ... or is it 'What hath Obama wrought on Cairo'?Topics: Egypt, Middle East News and Perspectives, Political News and commentaries
Yesterday, an NY Post editorial asked, "What hath "Cairo' wrought?" ... and briefly describes the fiasco going on in Cairo, Syria, Libya, and much of the Middle East:
[...] Is this the democratic Muslim world President Obama called for in his much-publicized Cairo address three years ago?Let's be a bit more clear about a couple of things here. Yes, Hosni Mubarak was "nudged" aside ... but the 'nudging' came with a lot of help from the Obama administration. As for the military continuing to have a say in Egypt having "a strong strategic relationship with the United States," the Obama Admin demands Egyptian military to hand over power to the new Muslim Brotherhood president.
Chaos there and a US impotent to do much of anything about it?
With the election this past weekend of Mohammed Morsi as president, Cairo became capital to an Egypt under the banner of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama's 2009 speech, recall, was a mishmash of moral equivalence -- apologizing for US intervention in the Middle East; comparing the CIA's alleged role in the 1953 Iranian coup to the 1979 Iranian Revolution's hostage-taking and subsequent state-sponsorship of terror.
Most reasonable people were at least skeptical as Obama stretched out a hand to the Muslim world, urging it to reject extremism and move closer to Washington.
Such skepticism has proved warranted.
Egypt's Arab Spring democracy movement, for better or for worse, led to longtime US ally Hosni Mubarak being nudged aside -- and the rise of the Brotherhood.
In Libya, the US "lead from behind" strategy to push out Moammar Khadafy accomplished that goal -- but a dangerous leadership vacuum persists and the future is dark.
And in Syria, a full-blown civil war rages.
In a nutshell, the US has far less influence in Egypt today than at any point during the last four decades -- a fact of serious consequence strategically and economically.
Morsi says Egypt will remain steadfast to its international commitments -- including the Camp David accords with Israel.
Time will tell; the military -- which retains strong strategic relationships with the United States -- has a say in that.
But as a popularly elected leader, Morsi could be a focus for continued unrest and protest against military rule.
The White House calls Morsi's election a milestone in Egypt's road to democracy. ...
That would be the same Muslim Brotherhood that's planning to get rid of film and "artistic heritage," replace police uniforms with "Islamic garb," make memorization of Islam's holy book a pre-condition for advancement in school, impose Sharia, and work toward restoration of an Islamic caliphate.
As for the White House calling Morsi's election "a milestone in Egypt's road to democracy" ... this is one thing the White House just could be right on ... but unless the White House intended to see Egypt snuggle up to Iran, it's not exactly the kind of "milestone" one would hope the White House intended.
And as for a "full blown civil war" raging in Syria, the rebel forces being backed by the Obama administration are dominated by Sunni Islamists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood and include "al-Qaeda-type forces" ... so, unless the White House intends to see radical Islamists in control of Syria as well as in now Iran, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc., the outcome can't be considered as a victory for true democracy. As all reasonable people are well aware, under Islamic law (sharia) there are no equal rights for anyone except Muslims, no civil rights for anybody except Muslim leaders who have superior rights, and a deep hate for everyone and everything Western.
So it could be said that "Democratization" under the Obama regime has 'wrought' upon the Arab Middle East an "Islamization" movement in what used to be the more or less secular Muslim countries under dictatorships.
Obama's foreign policy strategy centered around himself, based on the incredibly naive assumption that an American president with Third World roots, a Muslim father, and who can quote from the Quran, recite the Muslim call to prayer in with a "first-rate Arabic accent" could overcome the disastrous Arab and Islamic culture of hate, resentment, and intolerance, and somehow compel Middle Eastern nations to take a benign view of America, was never a realistic or workable strategy ... from the get-go. No more so than the nutty notion that he could "reset" relations with Russia, that European allies would readily assume defence burdens that had been borne by the U.S., and that a new age of peaceful relations would be initiated ... all because HE, the world's new messiah, would inspire and reassure them.
As I wrote a couple of days ago in a post titled Barack Hussein Obama's Muslim Brotherhood Outreach 'Ain't Workin' Out So Well' ... Obama couldn't have done a better job of setting up the loss of the entire Middle East to radical Islam if he had done it on purpose ... and just perhaps, he did, on both accounts.
So, "Is the question 'What hath 'Cairo' wrought ... or is it 'What hath Obama wrought on Cairo'?" The answer is ... both. Cairo because the Islamists were given the opportunity to do what Islamists do best - create chaos, and Obama because he's so naive, so unprepared and unworthy of being president, and because he's so full of himself he actually believes the Islamists give a hoot about him or anything he has to say.
Posted by Hyscience at June 27, 2012 5:59 AM
Articles Related to Egypt, Middle East News and Perspectives, Political News and commentaries:
- Is the question 'What hath 'Cairo' wrought ... or is it 'What hath Obama wrought on Cairo'? - Jun 27, 2012