One of the many difficulties of the recent weeks since the election of Mr Obama as President has been the constant drum beat of the media which continues to savage President Bush without answer. The continued misstatements and distortions directed against the President seem unnecessary as the lame duck occupant of the Oval Office counts down the days to President Obama’s inauguration and the peaceful transfer of power to the new administration.
It has been my impression that the economic team nominations by the President Elect have been top drawer. As for his national security team, not so much – and I have concerns about the environmental team which has a record of mindless acceptance of the Gore hype for global warming. All of these issues will be addressed after President Obama takes office and appointees are actually confirmed and real actions and policies begin to emerge.
While I support President Bush and find much in his performance and character that is worthy of praise, I have also not hesitated to express my disagreement with his policies (such as the economic bailout and immigration) when I considered it necessary. And while I may write a post in the near future in defense of the President, today I will share some shortcomings of our Middle East policies.
I have written previously about author and columnist Daniel Pipes. His emails and his website (www.danielpipes.com) are a frequent source of information for me about the Middle East. Since I have no facility in the languages of the region, I do not have access to primary sources on this important part of the world and the Islamic influences which dominate the happenings and events which have such an impact on us. Daniel is a PhD from Harvard, speaks French and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at Harvard, the US Naval War College, the University of Chicago and Pepperdine University. He has authored 12 books
In his post on his website December 30, Daniel Pipes examines some of the documents which may provide a basis for the Obama policies in the Middle East. I will include his post in this article as a cautionary tale. But Daniel also highlights a series of shortcomings of the Bush policies which I think must be observed and understood so that these deficiencies may be addressed by the incoming administration of President Obama.
Pipes clearly credits President Bush with the creation of an Iraq without Saddam Hussein and a Libya without WMD. He does not address the removal of the Taliban from government in Afghanistan in this article.
The most serious Middle East threat, in my view, is the nuclear capability in Iran. Clearly a rogue administration, there is evidence that Iran may be planning an EMP attack against the United States (the detonation of a nuclear device in the atmosphere above the US to create an electro-magnetic pulse which could disable computer based devices) which could reduce our nation to immediate 19th Century status as a result of disabling our infrastructure to include transportation, communications and delivery of the most basic of services.
According to Pipes, further failures of the foreign policy of the administration include the re-emergence of Russia as a hostile force in the Middle East, the change of Turkey from a pro-American ally to an anti-American nation, the shift of Pakistan into an Islamist rogue state with nuclear weapons, the remarkable rise in oil prices during the last year and the discrediting of the doctrine of pre-emption.
So, while our Iraq efforts have unleashed historic forces in the region which may have a positive impact in later years and while I support the Iraq war in principle, the costs in economic terms and in expenditure of political capital have been high and the final results are not certain and will not be evident for decades to come.
I attach the current Daniel Pipes piece (which has appeared on Daniel Pipes website and has been published in the Jerusalem Post). I recommend that my readers continue to follow Daniel and his website. He is, in my view, a voice which our leaders need to hear. It may be useful for my readers to review this article at Daniel’s website as he includes numerous hyper-links to previous articles and source materials.
My source: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/6092
Insight into Obama's Middle East Policy?
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
December 30, 2008
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/6092[JP title: Insight into Bush's 'promising' Middle East]
Two events earlier this month summed up differing views of George W. Bush's Middle East record.
In one, Bush himself offered a valedictory speech, declaring that "the Middle East in 2008 is a freer, more hopeful, and more promising place than it was in 2001." In the other, an Iraqi journalist, Muntadar al-Zaidi, expressed disrespect and rejection by hurling shoes at Bush as the U.S. president spoke in Baghdad, yelling at him, "This is a farewell kiss! Dog! Dog!"
Ironically, Zaidi's very impudence confirmed Bush's point about greater freedom; would he have dared to throw shoes at Saddam Hussein?
While I like and think well of Bush, I have criticized his response to radical Islam since 2001, his Arab-Israeli policy since 2002, his Iraq policy since 2003, and his democracy policy since 2005. In both 2007 and 2008, I critiqued the shortcomings of his overall Middle East efforts.
Today, I take issue with his claim that the Middle East is more hopeful and more promising than in 2001. Count some of the ways things have degenerated:
* Iran has nearly built nuclear weapons and appears to be planning for a devastating electro-magnetic pulse attack on the United States.
* Pakistan is on its way to becoming a nuclear-armed, Islamist rogue state.
* The price of oil reached an all-time high, only to collapse due to a U.S.-led recession.
* Turkey went from being a stalwart ally to the most anti-American country in the world.
* Iraq remains an albatross (or a pair of shoes?) around the American neck, incurring expenses, fatalities, and with an immense potential for danger.
* Rejection of Israel's existence as a Jewish state has become more widespread and virulent.
* Russia has re-emerged as a hostile force in the region.
* Democracy efforts have collapsed (Egypt), increased Islamist influence (Lebanon), or paved the way for Islamists to attain power (Gaza).
* The doctrine of preemption has been discredited.
Bush's two successes, an Iraq without Saddam Hussein and a Libya without WMD, hardly balance out these failures.
Unsurprisingly, Bush's critics excoriate his Middle East record. Fine, but now that they are almost in the driver's seat; exactly how do they intend to fix America's Middle East policy?
One preview is on display in Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President, a major study issued jointly by two liberal lions, the Brookings Institution (founded 1916) and the Council on Foreign Relations (founded 1921). The culmination of an 18-month effort, Restoring the Balance involved 15 scholars, 2 co-editors (Richard Haass and Martin Indyk), a retreat at a Rockefeller conference center, multiple fact-finding trips, and a small army of organizers and managers.
This reader is struck by two major deficiencies. First, while the book covers six topics (the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran, Iraq, counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and political and economic development), its specialists have almost nothing to say about Islamism, the most pressing ideological challenge of our time, nor about the Iranian nuclear buildup, the most urgent military danger of our time. They also manage to bypass such issues as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Arab rejectionism of Israel, the Russian danger, and the transfer of wealth to energy-exporting states.
Second, the study offers defeatist policy recommendations. "Bring Hamas into the fold" advise Steven A. Cook and Shibley Telhami, arguing that the terrorist organization be included in a "Palestinian unity government" and be urged to accept the ill-fated Abdullah Plan of 2002. It is hard to imagine a single more counterproductive policy in the Arab-Israeli theater.
On the topic of Iran, Suzanne Maloney and Ray Takeyh dismiss both a U.S. strike against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure and the policy of containment. Instead, in a far-fetched "paradigm change," they urge engagement with Tehran, the acknowledgment of "certain unpalatable realities" (such as growing Iranian power), and crafting "a framework for the regulation" of Iranian influence.
As these examples suggest, a spirit of weakness and appeasement permeates Restoring the Balance. What happened to the promised robust promotion of American interests?
If one hopes the Obama administration will ignore such despairing pablum, one also fears that the Brookings-CFR mindset will dominate the next years. Should that be the case, Bush's record, however inadequate it looks today, would shine in comparison to his successor's.
