Agreed on Libya. And we royal f*&^% up policy on Egypt as well. At best, Obama's middle eastern policy can be called uneven. At worst, a cluster^&%
Agreed on Libya. And we royal f*&^% up policy on Egypt as well. At best, Obama's middle eastern policy can be called uneven. At worst, a cluster^&%
Re :Libya: A lot of pundits claim that it was about oil and that distinguishes Libyan from Syria (Libya produces about 20x more oil). I think that is too rudimentary.
One of my buddies, who has been at State since the Reagan years (and is one of those 'Men in Black guys'....he officially does not exist) had a great quote about Bush and Obama when it comes to Middle East policy. He said "these guys apparently took foreign policy lessons from Walt Disney because they live in fairly tale land." The concept of democracy is the Middle East is no more than a concept...it simply does not exist. For proof, name one?
As best I can see, Obama felt that Gaddafi was losing power (there were rumors that he was ill for some time) and it was best to support the insurgency rather than allow extremism to gain traction. The problem with this, though, is extremism really had no foothold in Libya and really never has.
As for Egypt, this pretty much solidified Obama as being out of touch and as much as he invokes Reagan, he failed to follow the Reagan/Haig doctrine. Mubarak was clearly a criminal and Egypt is insanely corrupt. The problem in Egypt is the extreme poverty, not fundamental philosophy, allowed extremism to permeate. So rather than support, through the CIA, the leader as Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton did, he supported the insurgents, banking on continued good relations with the new leaders. But Mubarak was clearly an ally and best for US interests for years. He was just horrible to the very poor.
There isn't much for improvement. If it was me, I publically stay neutral, and funnel money through the CIA to Mubarak for as long as I can. If it becomes clear he is going to be ousted, I throw public support behind whatever group is promising the best offer for the US, which was not the brotherhood (probably the Constitution party or the Justice party).
Re :Libya: A lot of pundits claim that it was about oil and that distinguishes Libyan from Syria (Libya produces about 20x more oil). I think that is too rudimentary.
One of my buddies, who has been at State since the Reagan years (and is one of those 'Men in Black guys'....he officially does not exist) had a great quote about Bush and Obama when it comes to Middle East policy. He said "these guys apparently took foreign policy lessons from Walt Disney because they live in fairly tale land." The concept of democracy is the Middle East is no more than a concept...it simply does not exist. For proof, name one?
As best I can see, Obama felt that Gaddafi was losing power (there were rumors that he was ill for some time) and it was best to support the insurgency rather than allow extremism to gain traction. The problem with this, though, is extremism really had no foothold in Libya and really never has.
As for Egypt, this pretty much solidified Obama as being out of touch and as much as he invokes Reagan, he failed to follow the Reagan/Haig doctrine. Mubarak was clearly a criminal and Egypt is insanely corrupt. The problem in Egypt is the extreme poverty, not fundamental philosophy, allowed extremism to permeate. So rather than support, through the CIA, the leader as Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton did, he supported the insurgents, banking on continued good relations with the new leaders. But Mubarak was clearly an ally and best for US interests for years. He was just horrible to the very poor.
There isn't much for improvement. If it was me, I publically stay neutral, and funnel money through the CIA to Mubarak for as long as I can. If it becomes clear he is going to be ousted, I throw public support behind whatever group is promising the best offer for the US, which was not the brotherhood (probably the Constitution party or the Justice party).
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.