Now, the American Embassy in Pakistan is under attack. Several embassies have been attacked. Perhaps it is time to be optimistic that less than a dozen have been attacked; perhaps the time is coming for newer optimism--that not many more than a dozen will have been attacked..
Is the Middle East something to forget--& get on with the campaign & election? Or is it serious? Foreign policy is not a popular topic in elections, but the recent violence has brought it to attention. What has Mr. Obama accomplished in the Middle East? Ought he to be judged by his astounding promises? Or by what standards?
Finally, what ought an American president to do now, or at least after the election, about the situation in the Middle East? Let the protests die down & pretend they did not happen? Mr. Obama--on Telemundo?--said he does not call Egypt an ally--nor an enemy. But what then? Has the series of civil wars in the Middle East changed the situation there?
I don't think it is something to forget about, but what can we do about it? We have no evidence that any government entities orchestrated the protests, and we can't go around trying to police up all of the Middle Eastern states. As far as I can see, the best we can do is reprimand those governments for their inability (or unwillingness) to protect foreign diplomats and threaten to cut ties with them if they do not make improvements.
Also, I do think Obama does have to be judged on his performance in the Middle East. When doing so, however, we must think about if anyone could have done a better job, or if it was just a lost cause to begin with.
First, the question about how you judge a president. Do his promises matter? Do his political opinions? It seems to me that liberals now have to say: Sure, but he was lying, he cannot change how the Muslims see America. But the popularity among liberals of his opinions on diplomacy make this a difficult subject. You cannot fault any specific candidate for making electoral promises if this sort of thing is done; but you cannot scapegoat electoral promises if liberals adore this kind of diplomacy.
As for his performance, surely, much better was easily within the reach of any mediocre administration. There were warnings, we are now told, & 9/11 is a sensitive date, so take no chances.--But Mr. Obama got all the big decisions wrong. He should have toppled Iran, but didn't, & now seems to be fighting to keep Israel waiting while Iran is developing nuclear weaponry. When? We don't know, but we apparently want to find out, strange as that may sound...
He should not have abandoned Egypt, who alone had signed a peace treaty with Israel, but he did; & one of his cronies went to tell Congress that the 'Muslim Brotherhood' is a secular organization. Now, I study political history professionally, so I feel the guy should be whipped & fired, because that particular organization was created as a kind of Nazi Muslim vanguard in the early 20th century. But let's say he wanted to lie to Congress for their own good--they don't know what I know, so they may believe him--it still shows this Administration is too cowardly to face the danger the religion of the Muslims presents to America.
He has talked tough on Syria through his Sec.State, though Sec.State had one year previously applauded, praised, extolled the local tyrant. It's one year later now, & nothing has been done. Do you love the guy or hate him? Why all this talk if America will do nothing?
As for Libya--the local tyrant was quiet; Mr. Bush Jr. saw to that. What did Mr. Obama do? Well, when the Lockerbie bomber was repatriated as a hero--nothing. Of course, the hundreds of Americans he helped to kill do not much matter to the president, but how about the country's reputation? Well, that's the thing--it seems he thinks a reputation for weakness is good, because just!--Why topple the tyrant? Or if you topple him, how could you not commit troops--whoever has troops on the ground decides what comes next, after all? Or if you do not commit troops, how could you do anything except find out everything about who is coming into power & threaten to bomb them into oblivion unless they behave?
This is becoming a nuisance; I do not want to take every country in the Middle East & talk about it. In short, civil wars have been fought, & are being fought, & are about to be fought in the Middle East--& America has won nothing by this, but has only lost--allies, reputation, & unity. When the president, Sec.State & assorted others attack American citizens for the benefit of America's enemies--there's something wrong with foreign policy.
Obama accomplishments in the Middle East:
-Apologized for our existence shortly after he was elected
-Supporting the Muslim Brother hood in Egypt who are now demanding the blind sheikh be released
-Setting free terrorists from Gitmo who may have taken part in the embassy attack and killing of an ambassador
-Pulling our troops out of war zones too early to leave countries unprepared to govern themselves
What would you have a President do right now?
If I were his adviser I would tell him to resign. Seeing as how I am a conservative, white, Christian (who attends and is very active in my church), male who works and pays taxes while supporting my wife and kids I doubt he would give me the time of day much less hire me as an adviser.
The question was what would you have A president do right now. I don't give a damn about you wanting President Obama gone. Right now, this very minute, what do you want A president to do.
Shields, every man who voted for Mr. Obama is responsible for defending his policy & America's current predicament. After you make the least bit of sense about what this liberal Administration has been doing & is going to do, if anything, then you get to interrogate those who warned against apologizing to Muslim mobs & tyrants & abandoning old allies. Meanwhile, you might admit thinking Mr. Obama would be good for national security was wrong; nobody here is going to ask for apologies or what have you--just learning that liberalism makes for insane diplomacy is ok. If you feel like saying that it was shameful & cowardly of American politicians & hacks to attack some citizen for making a video when foreigners were attacking embassies & killing Americans, that's decent of you. But that's a big if--
Start by being honest. The multiple international sources claim there was not a demonstration in Benghazi but that it was quiet and calm before the attacks. There is a constant hiding and mislabeling of events by this administration. The Nidal Hasan incident was a work place incident and this was a demonstration that got out of hand. The first step in resolving any problem is to identify/define/label the problem and our current administration refuses to do this.
How do you know exactly what the administration really is doing or not doing? You are writing under the assumption that you don't have enough information to say what you want someone to exactly do right now, so then how can you make the assumption that someone is doing the right or wrong thing?
You know that Sec. Clinton has attacked--on the record!--an American citizen for his free speech. You know that that an American embassy did the same. You know that the Press Secretary at the White House did the same. They all also lied--on the record!--saying that an American citizen has caused the attacks starting on 9/11/12.
These people need to be fired promptly--& replaced with people who are going to say the following things: What America is going to do from tomorrow is to force every gov't in the Middle East to pay for every bad thing that happens to an American embassy.--Of course, how they are going to do this is somewhat complicated, because it requires talking with gov't officials in the Middle East, who could not live a day without lying, it's the way things work, but at least the American part of the conversation can be a series of straightforward threats.--Every gov't will be given a timetable & a set of goals to reach; reprisals will start immediately by stopping all aid &, if it seems necessary, taking action against whatever countries are nuisances in international organizations, severing diplomatic ties, & imposing embargoes... Only this kind of threat will force these gov't's to protect sovereign American territory. They may not have started the protests, but they allowed them to happen, & that's enough. Otherwise, they piss on liberals--hell, one country has refused to allow a contingent of Marines in, to defend the embassy. That's their opinion of your kind of people.
I'd agree with the first two points there, but I think the second two are a bit foggier. As far as I know, the people released from Gitmo were released because we had no legal basis of holding them. Could they have orchestrated the attacks? Possibly, but that is speculation.
As far as pulling out of war zones, how long does one wait and continue to waste money until we "think" they are ready. What are the criteria for "readiness", and will it truly increase the security of the United States? I think the cost vs reward factor there was extremely low.
When their forces are shooting our soldiers as soon as their back is turned it is pretty clear that they are not ready. It is like a parent pulling the car over. If I have to take the time to pull the car over and stop the trip then I am going to make sure all the problems are solved before we start going again. We are over there and we have already pulled the car over.