Category Archives: Middle East

The speculation regarding President Obama’s handling of the recent fall of Egypt’s long standing regime is an ever growing amalgam of bigotry, conspiracy theories, and apologetics. And that’s just from the Left!

Now that we have the obligatory dig at liberals out of the way, it’s time to look at why President Obama is an abject failure in his handling of the recent so-called revolution of Egypt. The comparisons to former President Jimmy Carter have been made ad nauseum, parallels between the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Tehran are clearly drawn, and the idea that President Obama is a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer has been thoroughly explored. What has not been sufficiently examined, however, is the fundamental, foundational factor of this administration’s failure. Why is it this foreign policy flub a failure, rather than a simple gaffe? It is important that this question is explored, even if it is not currently possible to offer a definitive answer. Remember, this is about why it is a failure, rather than how the President failed.

It is reasonable to assume that anyone engaged in discourse of this nature is familiar with the Constitution of the United States, so a lecture on the authority and responsibility granted to the Executive Branch is not necessary. Considering this authority and responsibility, examine the manner in which our sitting President addressed the issue of revolution in an allied nation. Through all the flowery words, clever rhetoric, and silver tongued double-speak, President Obama instructed a foreign head of state to abdicate his office. Disregard the fact that President Obama was very critical of what he claimed was the ill conceived interference of the Bush Administration. The issue is not the president’s hypocrisy. It is his complete and unquestionable disregard for the welfare of the nation he represents. His manner of address was, and is, in violation of the responsibility of the office.

President Hosni Mubarak was a dictator, and by no means was he a pious icon of virtue. He was, however, the head of a government with which the United States was allied. Pay attention, that past tense will be important in days to come. A peace treaty with Israel was honored by the Mubarak regime, and United States military and intelligence was enabled by the aid of the standing regime. What is important is that we had a fairly reliable understanding of who and what we were dealing with. The only fact we can rely on in a post-Mubarak Egypt is that there is no way to know what will happen to United States interests there. Is it not the job, the duty, perhaps the obligation of the President, to ceaselessly pursue the interests of the United States? Personal preferences are irrelevant. The only interest a sitting president is authorized to pursue is that of the nation, not his own desires. By undermining President Mubarak, our own Commander in Chief has caused immeasurable damage to United States interests abroad. In short, a president does not abandon the known asset for the unknown. This is not Texas Hold “em. This is foreign policy and national security.

The Founding Fathers of the United States did not wage war or shed blood for the freedom of all people. Their struggle was to secure liberty for the people of this land, of the United States. That our federal government, an institution tasked with the sole purpose of defending our lives and way of life, would subvert our own nation’s welfare in the pursuit of a potential fledgling democracy, however strong that potential, is simply unthinkable. That bears repeating: it is unacceptable that our own liberty and safety is put at risk for the benefit of any foreign entity. As the uncertainty of Egypt after Mubarak looms on the horizon, the future of United States global welfare is precariously balanced upon a razor’s edge.

Ignore the fact that President Obama appears to have supported the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that has openly expressed the goal of subjugating the western world beneath a world-wide caliphate. Pay no mind to the apparent aiding and abetting of an enemy. All the appearances and claims in the world do not change the reality that we do not have all the facts, and cannot make a definitive judgment on the matter. What we do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that President Obama sent the clear message to all allies and potential allies that he is unreliable and cannot be expected to maintain alliances. He has reduced the steadfast reliability of the United States to little more than a flighty, fleeting relationship that stands no more chance of enduring strain than a high school romance.

The one job, the singular task of the president, is to ensure that the United States remains a strong and viable player on the world stage. Through execution of domestic and foreign policy, the President of the United States is charged with maintaining United States supremacy in the world.  That requires setting aside personal feelings and desires in favor of the needs of the country. It means making decisions that keep our nation at the top of the food chain. It is not the job of the President of the United States to make our country equal with any other. It is the president’s obligation to ensure our country is better off, superior to all other countries. Jimmy Carter based his foreign policy on human rights and it was a disaster. Barack Obama is not only repeating that mistake, he is knowingly diminishing our power on the international stage. If he were working for a private company and acting to equalize the market in favor of competitors, he would soon find himself standing in the unemployment line. How is it that the American people allow their employee- that is what he is- to act in this manner without so much as a social sanction? Worse, the vocal minority that controls the media is reveling in this weakening of American superiority, applauding it and promoting the ridiculous notion that this is somehow worthy of praise.

Do not forget the things President Obama has said. Remember that he has openly insulted peaceful protesters in the country that gave him the privilege of the presidency. He has used slurs such as “teabagger,” he has mocked the legitimate concerns of American citizens, he has called his fellow Americans the enemy. Yet he commends the revolutionaries of a foreign nation for their actions, some of which led to destruction of property and death, calling them inspirational. He openly speaks against a foreign leader which acts in favor of the United States, all the while ignoring the same attempts of a country under the iron thumb of the Iranian Islamic Theocracy. He makes no demands of abdication by dictators in countries such as Cuba or Venezuela. Those who pose a threat, minor or great, are free from his criticism. He reserves that for a man who provided assets to the United States.

All the theories and speculation mean nothing unless we are willing to stand firm on the unyielding fact that President Barack Obama has actively subverted the standing of the United States. If we cannot stand united in calling him to carpet for this failure, a concern based on clear and present fact rather than conspiracy, our ideas of his motivation are meaningless.

Speculation is the only viable response to the question of why President Obama chose the course he did, but we can answer why his response is a failure. The United States has been weakened and our future made less certain. He has failed in the one pursuit with which he has been tasked, the pursuit of American superiority and security, and that is why we cannot accept his foreign policy.

Consider this an invitation to discourse, a call to community examination of what makes this a foreign policy failure. If we cannot address that concern, no other issue is within our means. You have the floor.